{
  "id": 8553455,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CANDLER and MIKE MASON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Candler",
  "decision_date": "1975-04-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 744SC1092",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "319",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 318"
    }
  ],
  "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": "205 S.E. 2d 587",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556991
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 207",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622510
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562074
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0391-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2177,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.565,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35670303558238337
    },
    "sha256": "8ca44d921dbcb7c357d160413ac525b3807043ff9d3c620b688300f89b760234",
    "simhash": "1:c16184bb799f926e",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CANDLER and MIKE MASON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendants assign as errors, first, the denial of their motions for directed verdicts of not guilty, and, second, the failure of the court \u201cto properly instruct the jury as to the value of circumstantial evidence.\u201d We find no error in either assignment.\nThe evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was amply sufficient to require submission of the cases to the jury, and defendants\u2019 motions, which we treat as motions for nonsuit, State v. Holton, 284 N.C. 391, 200 S.E. 2d 612 (1973), were properly denied.\nThe court correctly instructed the jury as-to the burden and quantum of proof required for conviction, and absent a request for special instructions the court was not required to instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence. State v. Warren, 228 N.C. 22, 44 S.E. 2d 207 (1947) ; State v. Murray, 21 N.C. App. 573, 205 S.E. 2d 587 (1974) ; 3 Strong; N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 112, p. 8.\nWe have carefully reviewed the entire record and find\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Jesse G. Brake for the State.",
      "William E. Craft for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BARRY CANDLER and MIKE MASON\nNo. 744SC1092\n(Filed 2 April 1975)\n1. Animals \u00a7 7; Property \u00a7 4\u2014 wanton damage of realty \u2014 needlessly killing animals\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution of defendants for wantonly damaging real property in violation of G.S. 14-127 and of needlessly killing animals in violation of G.S. 14-360.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 112\u2014 circumstantial evidence \u2014 necessity for request for instructions\nThe court is not required to instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence absent a request for special instructions.\nAppeal by defendants from Lanier, Judge. Judgments entered 22 August 1974 in Superior Court, Duplin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 March 1975.\nDefendants were each convicted of willfully and wantonly damaging real property in violation of G.S. 14-127, and of needlessly killing animals in violation of G.S. 14-360. From judgments imposing prison sentences, they appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Jesse G. Brake for the State.\nWilliam E. Craft for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 346,
  "last_page_order": 347
}