{
  "id": 8556855,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID RAY KING and MARK McDOUGALD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. King",
  "decision_date": "1974-05-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7412SC346",
  "first_page": "549",
  "last_page": "550",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 549"
    }
  ],
  "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": "177 S.E. 2d 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 N.C. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564719
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0286-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1753,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.5916105598991863e-07,
      "percentile": 0.818609308882487
    },
    "sha256": "5d4791bba8482a73d4ae619d830b713f9a980f45d30cc5e9baab097b9af66b1d",
    "simhash": "1:8a6984063a114401",
    "word_count": 293
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID RAY KING and MARK McDOUGALD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nAppellants have set forth no argument and have cited no authority in support of their first assignment of error, which is accordingly deemed abandoned. In any event, there was ample evidence to warrant submitting the cases to the jury.\nAs to appellants\u2019 second assignment of error, the rule is that in the absence of a special request, the failure of the court to charge the jury to scrutinize the testimony of an accomplice will not be held for error, the matter being a subordinate and not a substantive feature of the case. State v. Brinson, 277 N.C. 286, 177 S.E. 2d 398. Here, there was no request for such an instruction.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney E. Thomas Maddox, Jr. for the State.",
      "Mitchel E. Gadsden for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID RAY KING and MARK McDOUGALD\nNo. 7412SC346\n(Filed 15 May 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 assignment of error abandoned\nAn assignment of error not supported by argument and authority is deemed abandoned.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 117\u2014 accomplice testimony \u2014 instructions not required\nIn the absence of a special request, the failure of the court to charge the jury to scrutinize the testimony of an accomplice will not be held for error.\nAppeal by defendants from Canaday, Judge, 10 December 1973 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Cumberland County.\nDefendants appeal from judgments sentencing them to prison upon their convictions for felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. They assign as errors (1) the denial of their motions for nonsuit and (2) the failure of the trial judge to charge the jury to scrutinize the testimony of the State\u2019s witness, Ralph Long, an accomplice.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney E. Thomas Maddox, Jr. for the State.\nMitchel E. Gadsden for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0549-01",
  "first_page_order": 577,
  "last_page_order": 578
}