{
  "id": 8549349,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT RAY GORDON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gordon",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7217SC452",
  "first_page": "241",
  "last_page": "242",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 241"
    }
  ],
  "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": "182 S.E. 2d 14",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547192
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 711",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555398
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0711-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219509
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 412",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621269
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 164,
    "char_count": 2105,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.369130595172464e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5147989322929638
    },
    "sha256": "95346ae6e418eaf42a9838cbb8e2848e20f8d7d75b2cadfc944201fdc2a4d6d9",
    "simhash": "1:a2a98e644694897b",
    "word_count": 357
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT RAY GORDON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his petition for a new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. Appeal does not lie from a refusal to grant a new trial for newly discovered evidence. State v. Thomas, 227 N.C. 71, 40 S.E. 2d 412; 3 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 148. We have, however, treated defendant\u2019s appeal as a petition for certiorari, which is allowed. The granting of a new trial based on newly discovered evidence rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, and its ruling thereon is not reviewable in the absence of a showing of abuse of that discretion. State v. Williams, 244 N.C. 459, 94 S.E. 2d 374; State v. Blalock, 13 N.C. App. 711, 187 S.E. 2d 404. After having carefully reviewed the record in the case, we find no abuse of discretion. The order denying defendant\u2019s petition is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Morris and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgcm by Associate Attorney Ralf F. Haskell for the State.",
      "Carroll F. Gardner and Charles M. Neaves for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT RAY GORDON\nNo. 7217SC452\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 148\u2014 newly discovered evidence \u2014 denial of new trial \u2014 appeal\nAppeal does not lie from a refusal to grant a new trial for newly discovered evidence.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 131\u2014 new trial for newly discovered evidence \u2014 denial \u2014 discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.\nPurported appeal by defendant, treated as petition for certiorari, from Crissman, Judge, 3 January 1972 Session of Superior Court held in SURRY County.\nDefendant was arrested, tried, and convicted in January 1971 on charges of breaking and entering and larceny. He appealed and no error was found. (12 N.C. App. 38, 182 S.E. 2d 14). On 26 October 1971, defendant filed a petition for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. A hearing on the petition was conducted before Judge Crissman, who denied the relief sought. Defendant gave notice of appeal.\nAttorney General Robert Morgcm by Associate Attorney Ralf F. Haskell for the State.\nCarroll F. Gardner and Charles M. Neaves for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0241-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 266
}