{
  "id": 8549091,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON WINFREY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Winfrey",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7512SC684",
  "first_page": "352",
  "last_page": "353",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 352"
    }
  ],
  "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": 185,
    "char_count": 2415,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "sha256": "f487b6ebaccc6bcc69121a77ad3e315b39fa1d6e7a1aba02693862e6b1c358d1",
    "simhash": "1:9f2cca2fffd8e2f6",
    "word_count": 391
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON WINFREY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe State offered evidence that defendant was operating a motor vehicle on the highway while his operator\u2019s license was permanently revoked. Defendant testified in his own behalf and admitted that he was operating a motor vehicle at the time in question and that he was doing so after having been notified of the revocation of his license. The \u201cexplanation\u201d that he obviously wanted to offer all along was that, in substance, he was driving only because he had taken a friend to the friend\u2019s father\u2019s funeral.\nOn appeal, defendant\u2019s counsel urges that remarks by the judge during the course of the trial amounted to an expression of opinion on the evidence. We need not set out the instances of which defendant complains. Throughout the trial defendant tried to testify when he was not on the stand, make inappropriate motions, inject feckless objections and generally, though apparently without malice, disrupt the trial. The judge elected to proceed with the trial under these difficult circumstances rather than hold defendant in contempt.\nWe have considered all of defendant\u2019s assignments of error. There has been no error shown that could have affected the verdict of the jury.\nNo error.\nJudges Martin and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr., for the State.",
      "MacRae, MacRae & Perry, by Daniel T. Perry III, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEON WINFREY\nNo. 7512SC684\n(Filed 7 January 1976)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 remarks of court \u2014 no expression of opinion\nRemarks by the trial court did not constitute an expression of opinion in this trial of defendant for driving while his license was permanently revoked wherein defendant elected to appear without counsel.\nAppeal by defendant from Bailey, Judge. Judgment entered 7 May 1975 in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 November 1975.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with operating a motor vehicle while his license was permanently revoked. He pleaded guilty to that charge in the District Court. From the judgment entered he appealed to the Superior Court.\nIn the Superior Court defendant elected to appear without counsel. He tendered a plea of \u201cGuilty with an explanation.\u201d The judge directed that a plea of not guilty be entered. The jury found defendant guilty. Thereafter defendant retained counsel to represent him on appeal to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr., for the State.\nMacRae, MacRae & Perry, by Daniel T. Perry III, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0352-01",
  "first_page_order": 380,
  "last_page_order": 381
}
