{
  "id": 8549415,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARVIL LEE JOHNSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Johnson",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 7217SC451",
  "first_page": "244",
  "last_page": "244",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 244"
    }
  ],
  "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": "280 N.C. 303",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571535,
        8571569,
        8571443,
        8571476,
        8571510
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0303-04",
        "/nc/280/0303-05",
        "/nc/280/0303-01",
        "/nc/280/0303-02",
        "/nc/280/0303-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 339",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553224
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0339-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 476",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567347
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0680-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 148,
    "char_count": 1674,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.465,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39452975829864984
    },
    "sha256": "f2f5144e9caf814538b70754e0e5949f0845ed115c7a9958dae6230406d7d4ad",
    "simhash": "1:15920040a01dfc0e",
    "word_count": 280
  },
  "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. ARVIL LEE JOHNSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s only assignments of error are directed to two portions of the court\u2019s instructions to the jury. These two isolated portions of the charge taken out of context as they are and standing alone, might be regarded as erroneous. However, the charge to the jury must be construed contextual!y and not in detached parts. State v. McWilliams, 277 N.C. 680, 178 S.E. 2d 476 (1971); State v. Holt, 13 N.C. App. 339, 185 S.E. 2d 429 (1971), cert. denied 280 N.C. 303 (1972). Here the charge as a whole presents the law fairly and clearly to the jury and is free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Davis, for the State.",
      "Carroll F. Gardner for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARVIL LEE JOHNSON\nNo. 7217SC451\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\nHomicide \u00a7 23\u2014 instructions\nAlthough two isolated portions of the court\u2019s charge in a homicide prosecution might be regarded as erroneous when taken out of context, the charge as a whole presented the law fairly and clearly to the jury and was free from prejudicial error.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge, 3 January 1972 Session, Superior Court, Surry County.\nDefendant was charged with first degree murder. At trial, the solicitor announced that the State would proceed on the charge of second degree murder or manslaughter, as the evidence might warrant. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of second degee murder. Defendant appeals from the judgment entered. He was represented at trial by court-appointed counsel and is represented on appeal by the same counsel appointed by the court.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Davis, for the State.\nCarroll F. Gardner for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0244-01",
  "first_page_order": 268,
  "last_page_order": 268
}