{
  "id": 8553444,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFFORD EARL MAYO",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mayo",
  "decision_date": "1975-11-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7518SC517",
  "first_page": "336",
  "last_page": "337",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 336"
    }
  ],
  "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": "80 S.E. 2d 147",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627586
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0521-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S.E. 2d 415",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626387
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0568-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 47",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560389
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0124-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 179,
    "char_count": 2194,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.599,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20596297313086592
    },
    "sha256": "4d349053407bdbe1013e67f2822b572f21b9bc754a2821778461c3ccc98caaae",
    "simhash": "1:c579622b02aa96e7",
    "word_count": 368
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFFORD EARL MAYO"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe trial judge, instructing the jury on the elements of the crime, charged the State with the burden of proving that the defendant knew that the pieces of paper with the numbers on them were lottery tickets. However the trial judge then stated, \u201cI instruct you that under our law unless the defendant introduces evidence of lack of knowledge, this element may be presumed.\u201d The defendant contends that the trial court\u2019s charge failed to place the burden of proof on the State. We agree.\nThe defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty casts upon him a presumption of innocence and the State has the burden of satisfying the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every material element of the offense. State v. Moore, 268 N.C. 124, 150 S.E. 2d 47 (1966) ; State v. Dallas, 253 N.C. 568, 117 S.E. 2d 415 (1960) ; State v. Cephus, 239 N.C. 521, 80 S.E. 2d 147 (1954). The trial court committed prejudicial error by requiring the defendant to negate the existence of a material element of the crime.\nNew trial.\nJudges Morris and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General John M. Silverstein, for the State.",
      "Taylor, Upper man and Johnson, by Herman L. Taylor and Leroy W. Upperman, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLIFFORD EARL MAYO\nNo. 7518SC517\n(Filed 5 November 1975)\nGambling \u00a7 3; Criminal Law \u00a7 112\u2014 lottery \u2014 instruction placing burden on defendant erroneous\nIn a prosecution for possession of lottery tickets, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the State had the burden of proving that the defendant knew that the pieces of paper with the numbers on them were lottery tickets, but the court erred in instructing that, \u201cunder our law unless the defendant introduces evidence of lack of knowledge, this element may be presumed.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Collier, Judge. Judgment entered 19 February 1975 in Superior Court, Guilford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 October 1975.\nDefendant was tried upon the charge of possession of lottery tickets in violation of G.S. 14-291.1. He was found guilty by a jury, and from a judgment imposing prison sentence defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General John M. Silverstein, for the State.\nTaylor, Upper man and Johnson, by Herman L. Taylor and Leroy W. Upperman, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0336-01",
  "first_page_order": 364,
  "last_page_order": 365
}