{
  "id": 8547671,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT HAROLD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harold",
  "decision_date": "1972-03-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7212SC149",
  "first_page": "172",
  "last_page": "173",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 172"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 377",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567599
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0714-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2256,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4731795174158802
    },
    "sha256": "401b2c55a374b6232733d20872554e2409e85aaf6d64e37fcfcf815bb647fc8e",
    "simhash": "1:945e82312ab3121b",
    "word_count": 381
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT HAROLD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nThe record discloses that a warrant was issued in the District Court of Cumberland County charging the defendant with the unlawful operation of a motor vehicle upon the public highways of the State on 12 June 1971, while his operator\u2019s license was in a state of suspension; this being a second offense of this type as he had been convicted previously of a similar offense on 2 June, 1971.\nThe disposition of this case in the District Court is not shown by the record, and it does not appear how this case reached the Superior Court from which court this purported appeal was taken.\nIn the absence of any showing that the case was properly docketed in the Superior Court and therefore properly appealed to this Court, the appeal is dismissed.\nNevertheless, we have examined the purported appeal and assignments of error and find them without merit. For the most part all errors are assigned to the admission of evidence. There were no objections made to such evidence and in the absence of an objection at the time the evidence was offered a new trial will not be awarded even though the evidence be incompetent. State v. Ball, 277 N.C. 714, 178 S.E. 2d 377 (1970).\nThe record reveals that the defendant, if properly in the Superior Court, had a fair trial, free of any prejudicial error.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges Britt and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorneys General William W. Melvin and William B. Ray for the State.",
      "Anderson, NimocJcs & Broadfoot by Henry L. Anderson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANKLIN ROOSEVELT HAROLD\nNo. 7212SC149\n(Filed 29 March 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 18, 157\u2014 appeal from superior court \u2014 failure to show disposition in district court\nAppeal from conviction in the superior court of driving while license was suspended is dismissed where the record does not show the disposition of thej case in the district court and how the case reached the superior court.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 162\u2014 necessity for objection\nThe admission of incompetent evidence is not ground for a new trial where there was no objection at the time the evidence was offered.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment of Bailey, Judge, 20 September 1971 Session, Cumberland Superior Court.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorneys General William W. Melvin and William B. Ray for the State.\nAnderson, NimocJcs & Broadfoot by Henry L. Anderson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0172-01",
  "first_page_order": 198,
  "last_page_order": 199
}