{
  "id": 8554737,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PEARL RANSOM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ransom",
  "decision_date": "1968-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 68SC233",
  "first_page": "613",
  "last_page": "615",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 613"
    }
  ],
  "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": "161 S.E. 2d 159",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551932
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0250-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 4628,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20599791725309083
    },
    "sha256": "3fb6d5d5409b93035bf0e2da4bcc746ac2e0283151549cc242e3cc2ddb1bb2c5",
    "simhash": "1:fe5730e61e36c4d2",
    "word_count": 790
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:57.624547+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BRItt and Parker, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PEARL RANSOM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Brock, J.\nDefendant\u2019s entire evidence was addressed to her defense that she did not sell any whiskey to the ATU agent, that she was sick in bed, and that no one except her one witness and a relative came to her home on the occasion in question.\nIn stating her contentions the trial judge charged the jury, inter alia, as follows:\n. . And she relies upon the principle of law which the Court will give you, also, at least she contends that you should scrutinize the testimony of the witness, in that he was engaged in promoting the transaction, and that he was at least an aider and abettor, or an accomplice, in the crime.\n. . And the defendant contends he was an accomplice, in that he was aiding and abetting her in the sale by purchasing the liquor, and if he was not a principal, that he was at least an accessory before the fact, in inducing her to make the sale to him.\n\u201cOur Court has said that in passing upon an accomplice, you, the jury, should scrutinize his testimony closely, whether it is supported or unsupported, and you should only believe the same, if you do believe it, after careful and cautious consideration and your consideration of his testimony should be in connection with the fact that he is interested in the event, and the further fact that he, upon his own admission, is guilty as an accomplice of the crime charged against the defendant.\n\u201cThe defendant contends that you should scrutinize the testimony of the witness Brady, in the light of that instruction, and that you should not accept his testimony as true.\u201d\nIt is obvious that the defendant\u2019s evidence does not make such a contention. The contention given by the trial judge may be proper where a defendant contends entrapment; but here the defendant emphatically denies making a sale of whiskey to the State\u2019s witness. In this case the able and experienced trial judge has made a fundamental misconstruction of defendant\u2019s contention.\nOrdinarily a misstatement of the contentions of the parties must be brought to the Court\u2019s attention in order that it can be corrected before verdict; otherwise objection thereto will be deemed to have been waived. State v. Watson, 1 N.C. App. 250, 161 S.E. 2d 159. However, a fundamental misconstruction of defendant\u2019s contentions will be held error notwithstanding the absence of objection at the time. 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 118, p. 29.\nNew trial.\nBRItt and Parker, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Brock, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, by James F. Bullock, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.",
      "W. Earl Britt for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PEARL RANSOM\nNo. 68SC233\n(Filed 16 October 1968)\n1. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 19\u2014 prosecution for unlawful sale \u2014 instructions\nIn a prosecution for the unlawful sale of taxpaid whiskey, the State offered testimony of a Treasury agent that he purchased a one-half pint bottle of whiskey from defendant in her home on the date in question, while the witness for defendant testified that defendant was sick in bed on that date and that no- one came to her home except the witness and a relative. Held: Trial court committed error in charging that defendant contended the Treasury agent was an aider and abettor or an accomplice of defendant in inducing the sale of the whiskey, since defendant by her evidence emphatically denied the making of the sale.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 118\u2014 instructions \u2014 charge on defendant\u2019s contentions\nA fundamental misconstruction of defendant\u2019s contentions will be held error notwithstanding the absence of objection at the time.\nAppeal by defendant from Carr, J., 1 April 1968 Session, Robeson Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with the offense of selling taxpaid whiskey. From a verdict of guilty and judgment entered thereon in the District Court, she appealed to the Superior Court. Trial in the Superior Court was de novo by a jury upon the charge contained in the warrant.\nThe evidence of the State consisted of the testimony of an agent of the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division of the U. S. Treasury Department, who testified that he purchased a one-half pint bottle of whiskey from defendant in her home on the occasion in question; and the testimony of a deputy sheriff who testified that he instructed the undercover agent on how to get to defendant\u2019s home.\nThe testimony of defendant\u2019s only witness was to the effect that he was in defendant\u2019s home on the night in question and that defendant was sick in bed; and further that no one except a relative came to defendant\u2019s home on the occasion in question.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty, and judgment of confinement was entered. Defendant appealed.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General, by James F. Bullock, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nW. Earl Britt for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0613-01",
  "first_page_order": 633,
  "last_page_order": 635
}