{
  "id": 8552311,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN GORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gore",
  "decision_date": "1972-05-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 725SC131",
  "first_page": "645",
  "last_page": "646",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 645"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "sha256": "b16872a127c016dba0dcc7f551da7be5699eea87303343ef0aeb187e1e961187",
    "simhash": "1:abaeeb2203a0cbf6",
    "word_count": 409
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:48.650385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Mor\u00e9is and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN GORE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nThe only assignment of error argued on appeal relates to certain questions asked defendant and some of his witnesses by the trial court. Defendant contends that in propounding the questions the court inadvertently expressed an opinion on the credibility of his evidence. We disagree.\nWe deem it unnecessary to set forth the questions subject to exception. Suffice it to say we have carefully examined each of them and we conclude that no prejudice to defendant could have resulted.\nDefendant waived counsel and represented himself at the trial. The questions asked by the trial court appear to have been for the purpose of assisting defendant in presenting his defense of alibi. The answers elicited tended to clarify defendant\u2019s contentions.\nA review of the record, including the court\u2019s charge, discloses that defendant was tried for felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. In our opinion the bill of indictment contained in the record is sufficient to charge only the single offense of felonious larceny. The judgment in the record shows that defendant was only sentenced for this offense. Under these circumstances, any error which may have resulted from proceeding as if the bill of indictment contained two counts was not prejudicial.\nNo error.\nJudges Mor\u00e9is and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Satisky for the State.",
      "Herbert J. Zimmer for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN GORE\nNo. 725SC131\n(Filed 24 May 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99 \u2014 questions by trial court \u2014 expression of opinion\nIn this felonious larceny prosecution wherein defendant waived counsel and represented himself at the trial, the trial court did not express an opinion on the credibility of defendant\u2019s evidence in asking questions of defendant and some of his witnesses for the purpose of assisting defendant in presenting his defense of alibi.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 171 \u2014 indictment charging one crime \u2014 trial for two crimes \u2014 sentence \u2014 harmless error\nAny error which may have resulted from proceeding as if the indictment contained felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny counts when the indictment was sufficient to charge only the single offense of felonious larceny was not prejudicial where defendant was sentenced only for felonious larceny.\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, Judge, 25 October 1971 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in NEW Hanover County.\nDefendant was tried and convicted of the offense of larceny committed after feloniously breaking and entering a building in violation of G.S. 14-54. G.S. 14-72 (b) (2).\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Satisky for the State.\nHerbert J. Zimmer for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0645-01",
  "first_page_order": 671,
  "last_page_order": 672
}