{
  "id": 8553548,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM McKINLEY LINGERFELT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lingerfelt",
  "decision_date": "1975-02-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7424SC871",
  "first_page": "588",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 588"
    }
  ],
  "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": 154,
    "char_count": 1642,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "sha256": "186dca411b08cc6538ccccdc3880641ded33f98ba889256c2351cd6094f09d5b",
    "simhash": "1:167e241c3bf65225",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM McKINLEY LINGERFELT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant has preserved his assignments of error and has brought them forward for consideration on appeal. We have studied the record on appeal and have given careful consideration to each assignment of error and defendant\u2019s argument upon each. In our opinion no prejudicial error has been made to appear.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Magner, for the State.",
      "Ronald W. Howell, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM McKINLEY LINGERFELT\nNo. 7424SC871\n(Filed 5 February 1975)\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, Judge, 27 May 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Madison County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 January 1975.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with felonious breaking or entering and with felonious larceny.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that during the night of the offense defendant\u2019s automobile was near the scene, some twelve to fourteen miles from defendant\u2019s residence. Several of the items stolen at the time of the breaking or entering were found in and near defendant\u2019s residence.\nThe defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that during the night in question he remained at home all night; that one Norris came by his house and borrowed his car; about two hours later Norris returned his car, left the seized items at defendant\u2019s residence and stated that he would return to pick them up. Norris cannot now be found.\nThe case was submitted to the jury under the doctrine of possession of recently stolen property. From a verdict of guilty as charged and judgment entered thereon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Magner, for the State.\nRonald W. Howell, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0588-01",
  "first_page_order": 616,
  "last_page_order": 616
}