{
  "id": 8549286,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LONNIE ROBERTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Roberts",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7223SC326",
  "first_page": "237",
  "last_page": "238",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 237"
    }
  ],
  "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": "158 S.E. 2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573790
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "512"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 S.E. 2d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 497",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12166634
      ],
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0497-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S.E. 180",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N.C. 361",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611084
      ],
      "year": 1932,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0361-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4388502959052825
    },
    "sha256": "456d24e366a0441f8511b98a16e1a0af6c3482d53c9022762bc15451ce098965",
    "simhash": "1:c73370ce74831eec",
    "word_count": 476
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LONNIE ROBERTS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s sole assignment of error is that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance made at the beginning of trial. State v. Garner, 203 N.C. 361, 166 S.E. 180 (1932); State v. Gibson, 229 N.C. 497, 50 S.E. 2d 520 (1948). On 8 December 1971, the trial court informed defendant\u2019s attorney that before ruling on any motion for a continuance, he would require a doctor\u2019s certificate verifying that defendant\u2019s wife was ill. On 9 December 1971, the case was called for trial but before any evidence was presented, defendant moved for a continuance. Defendant\u2019s attorney admitted that he did not have the required doctor\u2019s certificate. Defendant\u2019s attorney did go on to say, however, that he did have a card which was an application to admit the defendant\u2019s wife to the hospital on the following day, 10 December 1971. In his discretion, the trial court denied defendant\u2019s motion for a continuance, and an exception was duly noted.\nThe record of the case on appeal contains no showing that defendant planned to call his wife as a witness or if he did, what her testimony would have been.\n\u201cWhether a defendant bases his appeal upon an abuse of judicial discretion, or a denial of his constitutional rights, to entitle him to a new trial because his motion to continue was not allowed, he must show both error and prejudice. (Citation omitted.)\u201d State v. Moses, 272 N.C. 509, 512, 158 S.E. 2d 617 (1968).\nWe find neither error nor prejudice in this case.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant \u25a0 Attorney General Mitchell, for the State.",
      "Whicker, Vannoy and Moore, by Howard C. Colvard, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LONNIE ROBERTS\nNo. 7223SC326\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 91\u2014 denial of continuance \u2014 illness of defendant\u2019s wife\nThe trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for continuance made on the ground that defendant\u2019s wife was going to be admitted to a hospital on the following day, where the trial court had previously informed defense counsel that a doctor\u2019s certificate verifying that defendant\u2019s wife was ill would be required, but no such certificate was presented, and there was no showing that defendant planned to call his wife as a witness or what her testimony would have been.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge, 6 December 1971 Regular Session, Superior Court, Wilkes County.\nDefendant was charged in a valid bill of indictment with feloniously discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling in violation of G.S. 14-34.1. The case was consolidated, without objection, with two other misdemeanor charges for the purpose of trial, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each of the three offenses. Defendant\u2019s appeal is from the conviction and resulting sentence for the felony.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant \u25a0 Attorney General Mitchell, for the State.\nWhicker, Vannoy and Moore, by Howard C. Colvard, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0237-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 262
}