{
  "id": 8553870,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN LEWIS MURRARY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Murrary",
  "decision_date": "1972-11-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 7228SC738",
  "first_page": "638",
  "last_page": "640",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 638"
    }
  ],
  "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": "170 S.E. 2d 125",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547908
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S.E. 2d 503",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N.C. 737",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613303
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0737-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 208,
    "char_count": 3035,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41401699481321114
    },
    "sha256": "4527a350b41038779e6b2d5cc9594b9a9d34d05e9177872d355d04fc47c16533",
    "simhash": "1:097a438300223a7a",
    "word_count": 508
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Mor\u00e9is concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN LEWIS MURRARY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error is directed to denial of his motion for nonsuit. There was ample evidence to require submission of the case to the jury and there is no merit in defendant\u2019s first assignment of error.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error is directed to denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. \u201cA motion in arrest of judgment is one made after verdict and to prevent entry of judgment, and is based upon the insufficiency of the indictment or some other fatal defect appearing on the face of the record.\u201d State v. McCollum, 216 N.C. 737, 6 S.E. 2d 503. The indictment in the present case is sufficient to charge the offense of armed robbery, and no defect appears on the face of the record before us. Accordingly, defendant\u2019s second assignment of error is also without merit.\nWe note that the indictment as well as the judgment and commitment refer to the defendant as \u201cJohn Louis Murray,\u201d while the caption of the case in the record on appeal names defendant as \u201cJohn Lewis Murrary.\u201d While defendant has made no point concerning this, in view of his motion in arrest of judgment we deem it proper to advert to this fact, and we hold that the doctrine of idem sonans is applicable. State v. Culbertson, 6 N.C. App. 327, 170 S.E. 2d 125.\nWe have carefully reviewed the entire record and find\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Mor\u00e9is concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Howard P. Satisky for the State.",
      "Robert L. Harrell for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN LEWIS MURRARY\nNo. 7228SC738\n(Filed 22 November 1972)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 4\u2014 armed robbery \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nState\u2019s evidence, including the identification of defendant by two eyewitnesses, was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in an armed robbery prosecution.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 127\u2014 motion in arrest of judgment \u2014 denial\nDefendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment in an armed robbery case was properly denied where the indictment sufficiently charges the offense of armed robbery and no defect appears on the face of the record.\n3. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 10\u2014 name of the accused \u2014 doctrine of idem sonans\nDoctrine of idem, sonans is applicable where the indictment, judgment and commitment refer to defendant as \u201cJohn Louis Murray\u201d and the caption of the case in the record on appeal names defendant as \u201cJohn Lewis Murrary.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Anglin, Judge, May 1972 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Buncombe County.\nDefendant was tried on his plea of not guilty to an indictment charging him with armed robbery. The State presented the testimony of two eyewitnesses who positively identified defendant as the person who committed the robbery charged in the bill of indictment. Defendant testified that at the time the robbery was alleged to have been committed he was on a plane traveling to New York and presented witnesses to corroborate his alibi. The jury found defendant guilty of armed robbery, and from judgment imposing prison sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Howard P. Satisky for the State.\nRobert L. Harrell for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0638-01",
  "first_page_order": 662,
  "last_page_order": 664
}