{
  "id": 8556157,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT OOTEN, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ooten",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 748SC1095",
  "first_page": "674",
  "last_page": "675",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 674"
    }
  ],
  "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": 148,
    "char_count": 2068,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.551,
    "sha256": "8049e4346402067f630fb2859a900f8ba5dfa9028959d94d08024bccf9f3ee11",
    "simhash": "1:372e65459dbbd078",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT OOTEN, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe only argument advanced by the defendant on this appeal is that \u201cthe verdict is clearly ambiguous and in view of the Law of North Carolina clearly holding that an ambiguous verdict, the ambiguity being unexplainable, must be interpreted in favor of the defendant. . . .\u201d\nDefendant insists that the phrase \u201cnot guilty on the other counts\u201d makes the verdict ambiguous because he could have been found guilty of only two counts under the indictment. Defendant\u2019s argument is not persuasive. By finding the defendant guilty of the lesser included offense charged in the first count of the bill of indictment, the jury found the defendant not guilty of felonious breaking or entering. The phrase in the verdict, \u201cnot guilty on the other counts,\u201d merely expands the verdict to find the defendant not guilty of felonious larceny, the second count in the bill of indictment.\n' The defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray for the State.",
      "Whitley and Vickory by C. Branson Viekory for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT OOTEN, JR.\nNo. 748SC1095\n(Filed 7 May 1975)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 124 \u2014 sufficiency of verdict\nIn a prosecution upon an indictment charging felonious breaking or entering, larceny and receiving, a jury verdict finding defendant guilty of nonfelonious entry and \u201cnot guilty on the other counts\u201d was not ambiguous although the court did not submit the receiving count to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Rome, Judge. Judgment entered 14- October 1974 in-the S\u00faperior Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 March 1975.\nThe defendant, Robert Ooten, Jr., was charged in a three-count bill of indictment, proper in form, with felonious breaking or entering, larceny, and receiving.\nThe defendant pleaded not guilty. The jury found the defendant \u201cguilty of non-felonious entry; not guilty on the other counts.\u201d From a judgment imposing a jail sentence of two years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Charles J. Murray for the State.\nWhitley and Vickory by C. Branson Viekory for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0674-01",
  "first_page_order": 702,
  "last_page_order": 703
}