{
  "id": 8553553,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL GEORGE SNEAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Snead",
  "decision_date": "1968-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 6822SC292",
  "first_page": "407",
  "last_page": "408",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 407"
    }
  ],
  "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": 163,
    "char_count": 2012,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "sha256": "821ad2c4c8d260932535181b03b9862de0f6b51f63d728beffc43f86e7370425",
    "simhash": "1:91a9ae54a5286605",
    "word_count": 322
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:57.624547+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallabd, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL GEORGE SNEAD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Morris, J.\nAppellant assigns as error (1) the consideration by the court of defendant\u2019s confession without adequate or proper determination that the same was freely and voluntarily given, and (2) the sentences imposed constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the circumstances.\nCounsel for appellant candidly states in his brief that he has carefully investigated and finds no support for his assignments of error but asks that the Court review the record. This we have done.\nWe find, upon a careful examination of the record and. the . evidence, that evidence as to defendant\u2019s signed waiver of rights and confession was admitted in each instance without objection and that defendant himself, on questioning by the court, stated that he was guilty of the charges but that the two others he implicated in his confession were not; that his statement was true as to him but not true as to the others.\nThe sentences imposed were within the statutory limit.\nDefendant was represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty, reiterated his guilt in open court, and received sentences within the limits provided by statute.\nNo error.\nMallabd, C.J., and Campbell, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Morris, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fred G. Chamblee for defendant appellant.",
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton by Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAUL GEORGE SNEAD\nNo. 6822SC292\n(Filed 18 September 1968)\nAppeal by defendant from McLaughlin, J., January-February 1968 Session, Iredell Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in three separate bills of indictment with breaking and entering and larceny and in two separate bills with assault on \u25a0 a female. The charges of assault on a female were nol prossed. Defendant, through his counsel, entered a plea of guilty to each of the other charges. From the judgment in each case entered by the court, defendant appealed. Upon a finding of indigency, the court appointed counsel and ordered that transcript of the trial proceedings be furnished defendant without charge.\nFred G. Chamblee for defendant appellant.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton by Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0407-01",
  "first_page_order": 427,
  "last_page_order": 428
}