{
  "id": 8554949,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD McRAE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McRae",
  "decision_date": "1973-10-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 7321SC575",
  "first_page": "579",
  "last_page": "580",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 579"
    }
  ],
  "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": 188,
    "char_count": 2197,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3793773304930133
    },
    "sha256": "dfaf30b17b884aa70ea1f15fc550634f48281c0d8a076c7b1c4befea1c09ec66",
    "simhash": "1:869a807d2231f88b",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Mor\u00e9is and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD McRAE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nAt defendant\u2019s insistence counsel has presented defendant\u2019s contention that each of the following constitutes an error which entitles him to relief: (1) the fact that he is not guilty; (2) there was no corroboration of the State\u2019s only witness; (3) jurors summoned to serve in civil cases were sworn and empaneled to sit in his criminal ease; (4) one juror works at Western Electric, where the State\u2019s only witness works for the food service; (5) defendant was placed in double jeopardy because the solicitor brought up his past record on cross-examination of defendant; and (6) the sentence imposed after conviction in Superior Court was greater than that imposed in District Court. We have considered each of these contentions and find them to be without merit.\nDefendant further seeks to argue that he was denied his right to counsel during the trial in District Court. We do not reach this question. The record on appeal does not disclose anything about the trial in District Court except the warrant, judgment, and notice of appeal. We decline to decide an issue submitted upon a theoretical or assumed set of facts. Counsel has been diligent in his efforts, but the record before us does not present the question he seeks to argue.\nNo error.\nJudges Mor\u00e9is and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General leenhour, for the State.",
      "Jenkins, Lucas and Babb, by Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES EDWARD McRAE\nNo. 7321SC575\n(Filed 10 October 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 158 \u2014 matter omitted from record on appeal \u2014 question not considered on appeal\nThe Court of Appeals does not reach the question of denial of defendant\u2019s right to counsel in District Court where the record on appeal does not disclose anything about the trial in District Court except the warrant, judgment, and notice of appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Collier, Judge, 16 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County.\nDefendant was charged with an assault upon Mae Frances McRae with a deadly weapon. He was tried in the District Court and found guilty. Upon his appeal he was tried de novo in the Superior Court and found guilty.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General leenhour, for the State.\nJenkins, Lucas and Babb, by Judson D. DeRamus, Jr., for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0579-01",
  "first_page_order": 603,
  "last_page_order": 604
}