{
  "id": 8553413,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES C. MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7425SC896",
  "first_page": "582",
  "last_page": "583",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 582"
    }
  ],
  "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": "199 S.E. 2d 708",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555320
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 S.E. 2d 583",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 645",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557213
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0645-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 201",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165227
      ],
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0201-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574647
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0221-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2440,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3479390111160921
    },
    "sha256": "dc2c7d92a00d89f32312f39b2dabc456a0c7af6fd8d7bc9220bd864591d6d227",
    "simhash": "1:8708e27ad8b0ec63",
    "word_count": 421
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES C. MOORE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nThe only assignment of error that defendant brings forward and argues in his brief is that the trial judge erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a postponement of his trial. The reason stated for the motion was that just before defendant\u2019s case was called for trial, another defendant, represented by the same attorney who represented defendant, had been tried on a charge of escape and convicted; that some of the same jurors who had served in the trial of the other case would be called to serve in the trial of defendant\u2019s case. We find no merit in this assignment.\nRulings on motions for postponement of trials and competency of jurors are discretionary with the trial judge and will not be reviewed absent a showing of abuse of discretion or an error of law. G.S. 9-14; State v. Watson, 281 N.C. 221, 188 S.E. 2d 289 (1972) ; State v. Strickland, 229 N.C. 201, 49 S.E. 2d 469 (1948). We hold that under the facts appearing in this case, defendant was not entitled to a continuance as a matter of law and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See State v. Martin, 21 N.C. App. 645, 205 S.E. 2d 583 (1974) ; and State v. Haltom, 19 N.C. App. 646, 199 S.E. 2d 708 (1973).\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Deputy Attorney General Robert N. Hunter and Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.",
      "Cagle and Houck, by William J. Houck, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES C. MOORE\nNo. 7425SC896\n(Filed 5 February 1975)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 91 \u2014 motion for continuance \u2014 jurors serving in prior trial of another defendant for same offense\nIn a prosecution for felonious escape, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for continuance made on the ground that jurors who had just tried another defendant represented by the same attorney and convicted him of escape would be called to sit in the trial of defendant\u2019s case.\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, Judge, 15 July 1974 Regular Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Catawba County.\nBy indictment, proper in form, defendant was charged with felonious escape from a unit of the North Carolina Department of Correction, this being a second offense. He pled not guilty, was found guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of two years, to begin at expiration of sentence being served, he appealed.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Deputy Attorney General Robert N. Hunter and Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.\nCagle and Houck, by William J. Houck, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0582-01",
  "first_page_order": 610,
  "last_page_order": 611
}