{
  "id": 8551868,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LLOYD CALVIN ASHE and HILLARD PRINCE ASHE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ashe",
  "decision_date": "1976-07-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7630SC210",
  "first_page": "74",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 74"
    }
  ],
  "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": "226 S.E. 2d 392",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551830
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/30/0071-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1581,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.643,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2497309110599423e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7812042323703042
    },
    "sha256": "94d4f4ea2e5c8068153c161e4c30558b56b2e2ed965c44e307cd5b872b9e66c6",
    "simhash": "1:8f594617fad35bee",
    "word_count": 259
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LLOYD CALVIN ASHE and HILLARD PRINCE ASHE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThis appeal is from the same trial as is reported in State v. Bryson, 30 N.C. App. 71, 226 S.E. 2d 392 (Case No. 7630SC192, opinion filed contemporaneously herewith.) Defendants raise the same questions for review as are presented in State v. Bryson, supra. For the reasons stated in the opinion in that case, we find no error.\nBecause of the filing of an unnecessary record on appeal and because unnecessary matter was included in the records filed, counsel for defendants will be personally taxed with a portion of the costs. Rule 9 (b) (5) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure; State v. Bryson, supra.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General David S. Crump.",
      "McKeever, Edwards, Davis & Hays by Franklin R. Plum-mer for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LLOYD CALVIN ASHE and HILLARD PRINCE ASHE\nNo. 7630SC210\n(Filed 7 July 1976)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 145, 154\u2014 consolidated trial of defendants \u2014 two records on appeal \u2014 inclusion of unnecessary material \u2014 taxing of costs against attorneys\nWhere attorneys appointed to represent three defendants in an appeal from a consolidated trial of defendants for the same offenses filed two records on appeal instead of one and included unnecessary material in each of the records filed, each attorney will be personally taxed with a portion of the costs. App. R. 9(b) (5).\nAppeal by defendants from Thornburg, Judge. Judgments entered 30 October 1975 in Superior Court, Cherokee County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 June 1976.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General David S. Crump.\nMcKeever, Edwards, Davis & Hays by Franklin R. Plum-mer for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0074-01",
  "first_page_order": 102,
  "last_page_order": 103
}