{
  "id": 8551336,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HENRY HINTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hinton",
  "decision_date": "1975-10-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 7526SC408",
  "first_page": "165",
  "last_page": "166",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 165"
    }
  ],
  "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": 186,
    "char_count": 2402,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "sha256": "3c8a5f471407fb23881e37fb758bbf92bd8488172964b43c876491cd7232244b",
    "simhash": "1:4cf0038207168660",
    "word_count": 384
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+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. WILLIAM HENRY HINTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s sole assignment of error is that the court erred in refusing to give jury instructions on reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence as requested by defendant in writing. We find no merit in the assignment.\nThe rule with respect to the question presented appears to be properly stated in 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 119, p. 30, as follows:\n\u201cWhere a prayer for special instructions is aptly tendered, and the instructions requested are correct in law and are based upon the evidence adduced, it is error for the court to fail to give the instruction requested, in substance at least. But the court is not required to give such instruc-toins verbatim, it being sufficient if the court gives the requested instructions in substance.\u201d\nIn the case at hand, while the court did not give instructions on reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence as lengthy as' those requested by defendant, we hold that the court gave the requested instructions \u201cin substance\u201d and the jury was properly charged on the legal principles involved.\nDefendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Conrad O. Pearson, for the State.",
      "Roger H. Bruny for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HENRY HINTON\nNo. 7526SC408\n(Filed 1 October 1975)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 119\u2014 request for instructions \u2014 instructions given in substance\u2014 no error ,\nWhile the court did not give instructions on reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence as lengthy as those requested by defendant, the court did give the requested, instructions in substance.\nAppeal by defendant from Chess, Judge. Judgment entered 19 March 1975 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 September 1975. '\nBy indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with (1) breaking and entering the residence of J. H.. Barbour, and (2) larceny of a television set, shotgun and camera, pursuant to the breaking and entering. He pled not guilty.\nEvidence against defendant included \u00e1 written statement which he gave to police in which he admitted participation in the offenses charged. Following a voir dire' hearing, the court found that the statement was given voluntarily.\n' The jury returned a verdict of guilty and from judgment imposing prison sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Conrad O. Pearson, for the State.\nRoger H. Bruny for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0165-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 194
}