{
  "id": 8549154,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VICTOR BERNARD MOORE and WILLIE LEE CARLTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 754SC569",
  "first_page": "353",
  "last_page": "354",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 353"
    }
  ],
  "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": 180,
    "char_count": 2462,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531319393524487
    },
    "sha256": "6a8aa78c54a2d2bb915924b79616c59340a794350fc8872b572234628166a7c5",
    "simhash": "1:23e9648e392f5023",
    "word_count": 400
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VICTOR BERNARD MOORE and WILLIE LEE CARLTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe court\u2019s finding that the in-court identification of defendants by the victim of the robbery was based on the victim\u2019s clear opportunity to observe defendants shortly before and at the time of the robbery, is supported by all of the evidence. There was no error in allowing the victim to identify defendants at trial.\nDefendant Moore assigns as error the failure of the court to make a finding that he would not benefit from commitment as a \u201cYouthful offender\u201d before sentencing him. There is nothing in this record to indicate that Moore was under '21 at the time of sentencing and the assignment of error is overruled.\nWe note that the record on appeal does not contain a single exception. All assignments of error must be based on exceptions duly noted. Exceptions which appear for the first time under purported assignments of error will not be considered. We also note that the court allowed 120 days from the entry of judgments for docketing the record on. appeal. The appeal was docketed on the 152nd day following entry of judgments. Failure to comply with the Rules subjects ah appeal to dismissal. We have, nevertheless, elected to consider defendants\u2019 appeals on their merits and find no .prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney Generad Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr., for the State.",
      "E. C. Thompson III, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VICTOR BERNARD MOORE and WILLIE LEE CARLTON\nNo. 754SC569\n(Filed 7 January 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 66\u2014 in-court identification \u2014 independent origin\nRobbery victim\u2019s in-eourt identification of defendants was properly admitted where the evidence supported the court\u2019s finding that the identification was based on the victim\u2019s clear opportunity to observe defendants shortly before and at the time of the robbery.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 134\u2014 no commitment as youthful offender \u2014 age not in record\nThe court did not err in failing to find that defendant would not benefit from commitment as a youthful offender where there was nothing to indicate that defendant was under 21 at the time of sentencing.\nAppeal by defendants from Martin, (Perry), Judge. Judgments entered 5 February 1975 in Superior Court, Sampson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1975.\nDefendants were convicted of the armed robbery of a ticket seller at a drive-in movie theater. From judgments imposing active prison sentences, defendants appealed.\nAttorney Generad Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilton E. Ragland, Jr., for the State.\nE. C. Thompson III, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0353-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 382
}