{
  "id": 8554260,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD EARL JOYNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Joyner",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 748SC663",
  "first_page": "741",
  "last_page": "742",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 741"
    }
  ],
  "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": "76 S.E. 2d 381",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600942
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S.E. 2d 425",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 434",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551092
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/15/0434-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2341,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.586,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20598729887340922
    },
    "sha256": "3c26dc93c40796f69b5450fa51432f4946a036de108395c97db7e948320ac9dd",
    "simhash": "1:46e4650d301154c8",
    "word_count": 399
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD EARL JOYNER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in accepting the verdict of the jury. The proceedings were as follows:\n\u201cClerk . . . How find you the defendant, Edward Earl Joyner as to the charge of driving while license suspended, guilty as charged or not guilty?\nJuror: We find the defendant guilty as charged.\u201d\nDefendant argues that the jury has not convicted him of a crime because the Clerk\u2019s question did not contain all the elements of a criminal offense. We overrule the assignment of error. The verdict \u201cguilty as charged\u201d alludes to the warrant, State v. Medlin, 15 N.C. App. 434, 190 S.E. 2d 425, and will thus be interpreted in the light of the warrant. State v. Albarty, 238 N.C. 130, 76 S.E. 2d 381.\nThe only other assignment of error is that the court \u201cerred in failing to summarize the evidence to the jury.\u201d A judge is not required to \u201csummarize the evidence.\u201d He is required to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case and need not state such evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto. G.S. 1-180. This assignment of error is overruled.\nWe find no prejudicial error in defendant\u2019s trial.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney- General James H. Carson, Jr., by John R. Morgan, Associate Attorney, for the State.",
      "Gerrans & Spence by C. E. Gerrans for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD EARL JOYNER\nNo. 748SC663\n(Filed 20 November 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 124\u2014 verdict of \u201cguilty as charged\u201d \u2014 sufficiency\nWhere the clerk asked the jury if they found defendant guilty as charged or not guilty, the verdict \u201cguilty as charged\u201d alluded to the warrant and it was not necessary that the clerk\u2019s question contain all the elements of a criminal offense.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113\u2014 jury instructions \u2014 summary of evidence not required\nA trial judge is not required to summarize the evidence to the jury; rather, he must state only such evidence which is necessary to explain the application of the law thereto.\nAppeal by defendant from Winner, Judge, 18 May 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Lenoir County.\nDefendant was convicted under a warrant charging him with operating a motor vehicle on a public highway at a time when his license was suspended. Judgment was entered imposing an active sentence of six months.\nAttorney- General James H. Carson, Jr., by John R. Morgan, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nGerrans & Spence by C. E. Gerrans for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0741-01",
  "first_page_order": 769,
  "last_page_order": 770
}