{
  "id": 8549224,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Daye",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7214SC418",
  "first_page": "233",
  "last_page": "234",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 233"
    }
  ],
  "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": 192,
    "char_count": 2695,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.298132930532853e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33466468508395664
    },
    "sha256": "fdeef18b02da22c065405d0acee99043259c70a9c7997dc10a27f1ff4d7c2044",
    "simhash": "1:46b2d170dbf6eceb",
    "word_count": 450
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error that the trial judge denied his motion for mistrial. Defendant argues that he was prejudiced by the questions propounded to him on cross-examination.\nAn examination of the record on appeal reveals that of the seventeen exceptions, which are grouped under defendant\u2019s sole assignment of error, thirteen exceptions are to the Court\u2019s action in sustaining defendant\u2019s objection to a question propounded by the solicitor. Only three of defendant\u2019s objections were overruled, and he offers us no reason as to why these three rulings were error. The seventeenth exception is to the denial of his motion for mistrial.\nWe note that defendant waited until after the jury verdict, the judgment, and the appeal entries, before lodging his motion for mistrial. A motion for mistrial after verdict and judgment comes too late. The proper motion would be a motion to vacate the judgment, set aside the verdict, and order a new trial. In any event, the motion in this case was addressed to the discretion of the trial judge and his ruling will not be disturbed. There was no showing of abuse of discretion.\nThe State\u2019s evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of the offense with which he was charged was unequivocal. Upon the whole record, we conclude there was no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General. Morgan, by Associate Attorney Conely, for the State.",
      "Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn, Hedrick & Murray, by E. C. Bryson, Jr., for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BONNIE LEE DAYE\nNo. 7214SC418\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 128\u2014 motion for mistrial \u2014 cross-examination of defendant\nThe trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial made on the ground that he was prejudiced by questions asked him on cross-examination, where only three of defendant\u2019s objections to such questions were overruled, and defendant has offered no reason as to why those rulings were erroneous.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 128\u2014 motion for mistrial after judgment\nA motion for mistrial after verdict and judgment comes too late, the proper motion at such time being a motion to vacate the judgment, set aside the verdict, and order a new trial.\nAppeal by defendant from Cooper, Judge, 24 January 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with the offense of driving a motor vehicle on the public highway while his operator\u2019s license was suspended. He was found guilty as charged in District Court and he appealed. In the Superior Court he was tried de novo by a jury upon the original warrant and was again found guilty as charged. He has now appealed to this court.\nAttorney General. Morgan, by Associate Attorney Conely, for the State.\nNewsom, Graham, Strayhorn, Hedrick & Murray, by E. C. Bryson, Jr., for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0233-01",
  "first_page_order": 257,
  "last_page_order": 258
}