{
  "id": 8550370,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN SUTTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sutton",
  "decision_date": "1974-10-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 748SC601",
  "first_page": "365",
  "last_page": "366",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 365"
    }
  ],
  "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": 170,
    "char_count": 2058,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.605,
    "sha256": "49eb4a9652fe9b18bd46f5d10dfff3c0dc09551433052577bf23e9ca56ba31d2",
    "simhash": "1:d56f05f27f1e68a2",
    "word_count": 342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN SUTTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nThe only assignment of error presented by the defendant in the record on appeal is his argument that the trial court erred when it overruled defendant\u2019s objection to the solicitor\u2019s use of defendant\u2019s testimony in phrasing a question to a witness for the defense. The solicitor stated: \u201cAll right, so if he (defendant) said that you all sat in the car and drank wine and beer and got high, that\u2019s not true is it?\u201d \u201cCounsel shall not knowingly misinterpret the contents of a paper, the testimony of a witness, the language or argument of opposite counsel or the language of a decision or other authority. ...\u201d Superior and District Court Rule 12. There is no suggestion that the district attorney misquoted or misinterpreted the defendant\u2019s testimony in this case. We find no prejudicial error in the ruling of the trial court.\nDefendant presents the record for review for possible errors. We have carefully reviewed the record. In our opinion defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney General Webb, for the State.",
      "Roland C. Braswell, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN SUTTON\nNo. 748SC601\n(Filed 16 October 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 solicitor\u2019s question \u2014 use of defendant\u2019s testimony \u2014 no error\nThe trial court did not err in overruling defendant\u2019s objection to the solicitor\u2019s use of defendant\u2019s testimony in phrasing a question to a witness for the defense, since the solicitor did not misquote or misinterpret the defendant\u2019s testimony.\nOn certiorari to review the order of James, Judge, 29 October 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 September 1974.\nThe defendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the felony of larceny of an automobile. A plea of not guilty was entered, and a verdict of guilty as charged was returned. From an active sentence of not less than seven years nor more than eight years imposed thereon, the defendant gave notice of appeal.\nAttorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney General Webb, for the State.\nRoland C. Braswell, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0365-01",
  "first_page_order": 393,
  "last_page_order": 394
}