{
  "id": 8552330,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASPER BREWER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brewer",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7426SC716",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "544",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 543"
    }
  ],
  "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": "85 S.E. 2d 342",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610947
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 108",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558017,
        8557953,
        8558096,
        8557936,
        8557970
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0108-04",
        "/nc/283/0108-02",
        "/nc/283/0108-05",
        "/nc/283/0108-01",
        "/nc/283/0108-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 413",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553516
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "103"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S.E. 2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "328"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553466
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "98"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/17/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 396",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568800,
        8568902,
        8568713,
        8568686,
        8568859,
        8568764
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0396-04",
        "/nc/279/0396-06",
        "/nc/279/0396-02",
        "/nc/279/0396-01",
        "/nc/279/0396-05",
        "/nc/279/0396-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 754",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 465",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555719
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0465-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.603,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20593845432687388
    },
    "sha256": "df2469e1297c2fc85338364d3d0ac36e13d4df249a5ef1b2e33e50697c879917",
    "simhash": "1:4a711412ecbd54ad",
    "word_count": 527
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASPER BREWER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BALEY, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the form of the court\u2019s instruction to the jury concerning his failure to testify. While an instruction more nearly in the language of G.S. 8-54 is preferable, State v. Powell, 11 N.C. App. 465, 181 S.E. 2d 754, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 396, 183 S.E. 2d 243, the court used language which clearly conveyed to the jury that the failure of defendant to testify was not to create any presumption against him. The identical words used by the court in this case.\n\u201cThe same law also assures him that his decision not to testify will not be used against him. Therefore, you must be very careful not to allow his silence to influence your decision in any way.\u201d\nwere held not to be prejudicial in State v. House, 17 N.C. App. 97, 98, 193 S.E. 2d 327, 328, and State v. Phifer, 17 N.C. App. 101, 103, 193 S.E. 2d 413, 414, cert. denied, 283 N.C. 108, 194 S.E. 2d 636.\nDefendant also complains that the court improperly sustained the objection of the State to questions propounded to a State\u2019s witness on cross-examination. There are no answers in the record from which this Court can determine if any testimony excluded on cross-examination would have been prejudicial, State v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 85 S.E. 2d 342, and the questions themselves call for highly speculative opinion on the part of the witness. See generally 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d (Brandis rev.), \u00a7 122.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BALEY, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General Charles A. Lloyd, for the State.",
      "Blum and Sheely, by Michael A. Sheely, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JASPER BREWER\nNo. 7426SC716\n(Filed 6 November 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 116\u2014 failure of defendant to testify \u2014 ..instructions\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction that \u201cthe same law also assures [defendant] that his decision not to testify will not be used against him. Therefore, you must be very careful not to allow his silence to influence your decision in any way\u201d clearly instructed the jury that defendant\u2019s failure to testify did not create any presumption against him.\nAppeal by defendant from Long, Judge, 22 April 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nHeard in Court of Appeals 18 September 1974.\nDefendant was tried upon an indictment charging armed robbery of Archie Burleson on 6 September 1973 in the warehouse office of Goodnight Brothers Trucking Company at Charlotte. He entered a plea of not guilty.\nThree employees of Goodnight Brothers were eyewitnesses to the robbery and testified for the State. Two of these witnesses identified defendant as the man they saw strike Archie Burleson on the head, point a pistol at Burleson and others present, and require Burleson to give him cash and checks from the cash register and office safe.\nDefendant did not testify. He relied upon an alibi and presented three witnesses who stated he was in their company at home at the time of the robbery.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence of 16 to 20 years, defendant has appealed.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Assistant Attorney General Charles A. Lloyd, for the State.\nBlum and Sheely, by Michael A. Sheely, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 571,
  "last_page_order": 572
}