{
  "id": 8556812,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN HENRY NORMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Norman",
  "decision_date": "1976-06-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7630SC45",
  "first_page": "606",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 N.C. App. 606"
    }
  ],
  "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": "205 S.E. 2d 587",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 573",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556991
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0573-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 668",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625663
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 664",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562829
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0107-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 5163,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.622,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531101234087393
    },
    "sha256": "7fbd5a2d2fe236fea5f8de317daa949706655d0655a91a087f13f0409315e39d",
    "simhash": "1:fdeae2401db83de4",
    "word_count": 892
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN HENRY NORMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy his first assignment of error, defendant contends the trial court erred in denying his motions for nonsuit and to set aside the verdict. We find no merit in the assignment.\nEvidence presented by the State is summarized in pertinent part as follows:\nOn the evening of 24 April 1975 Miss Bryson, a 20-year-old white student at Western Carolina University, went to a party at the home of a girl friend in the Sylva-Cullowhee area. During the evening a sizable group of young men and women attended the party, drank considerable beer, some whiskey, and smoked marijuana. At the party Miss Bryson met defendant for the first time; he was the only black person there. Around 11:30 p.m. she tripped over a man\u2019s foot and hit her eye on a chair. She began suffering with a headache and inquired if someone would take her home. Defendant volunteered to carry her in his car and she accepted his invitation.\nAfter leaving the party defendant drove to a friend\u2019s house and also stopped at another place purportedly to get something for Miss Bryson\u2019s headache. Thereafter, he drove the car a short distance, got out, and then returned from behind the car with no clothes on. He twisted Miss Bryson\u2019s arm behind her, forced her down across a console, and ripped her clothes off. He then pulled a knife and forced her onto the backseat of the car where he had intercourse with her against her will and tore at her with his hands. Thereafter, she put her clothes back on and defendant carried her to a point about a half mile from her home where he released her.\nThe victim was examined by doctors the next day and bruises were found on her arms, legs, lower back, and breasts. Her torn clothing and bloody underwear were introduced into evidence.\nDefendant testified in his own behalf, stating that Miss Bryson asked him for a ride home, that she willingly had intercourse with him, and that he had no knife. He did not know what caused her bruises.\nWe hold that the evidence was more than sufficient to survive the motion for nonsuit. As to the denial of defendant\u2019s motion to set the verdict aside as being against the greater weight of the evidence, that motion was addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge, State v. Davis, 282 N.C. 107, 191 S.E. 2d 664 (1972), and we perceive no abuse of that discretion.\nIn his second assignment of error, defendant contends the court violated G.S. 1-180 in its charge to the jury by placing more stress on the State\u2019s evidence than on the defendant\u2019s. This contention has no merit.\nThe State presented six witnesses, three of whom were recalled to the stand a second time. Defendant presented four witnesses, two of whom were character witnesses. The State\u2019s testimony consumes some sixteen pages of the record while defendant\u2019s evidence consumes only seven pages. Thus it was necessary that the court devote more time in stating the State\u2019s evidence than in stating the defendant\u2019s evidence. It has been held many times that the fact that the court necessarily consumes more time in stating the evidence for the State than in stating that of the defendant does not constitute an expression of opinion on the evidence. State v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E. 2d 668 (1941), State v. Murray, 21 N.C. App. 573, 205 S.E. 2d 587 (1974).\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error relate to the trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury. Suffice it to say, we have carefully reviewed the jury charge, with particular reference to defendant\u2019s assignments, and conclude that the charge is free from prejudicial error.\nWe hold that defendant received a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jesse C. Brake, for the State.",
      "Creighton W. Sossomon for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN HENRY NORMAN\nNo. 7630SC45\n(Filed 2 June 1976)\n1. Rape \u00a7 5\u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient for the jury in a rape prosecution where it tended to show that defendant gave his victim a ride home from a party, before releasing her he had intercourse with her against her will, the victim was examined by doctors the day after the alleged rape and bruises were found on her body, and the victim\u2019s torn clothing and bloody underwear were introduced into evidence.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 114\u2014 jury instructions \u2014 more time given to State\u2019s evidence \u2014 no expression of opinion\nThe fact that the trial court consumed more time in stating to the jury the evidence for the State than in stating that of the defendant did not constitute an expression of opinion on the evidence.\nOn writ of certiorari to review the judgment of Wood, Judge, entered 8 August 1975 in Superior Court, Jackson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 May 1976.\nBy bill of indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with raping Betty Louise Bryson on 24 April 1975. He pled not guilty, a jury found him guilty of second-degree rape, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than 25 nor more than 30 years, he appealed. Upon failure of defendant to docket his appeal within the time allowed by the rules, we granted certiorari.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Jesse C. Brake, for the State.\nCreighton W. Sossomon for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0606-01",
  "first_page_order": 638,
  "last_page_order": 641
}