{
  "id": 8551908,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WESLEY McCLENDON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McClendon",
  "decision_date": "1978-07-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 7826SC116",
  "first_page": "230",
  "last_page": "231",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 N.C. App. 230"
    }
  ],
  "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": "234 S.E. 2d 615",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 N.C. 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571329
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/292/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S.E. 2d 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 174",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622532
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0174-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2786,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059282220700898
    },
    "sha256": "26459c50f342b1c6d0331f6ad34e46a318472f31031608ef720936ad0f41d59a",
    "simhash": "1:3b00f0a31c2cbe7e",
    "word_count": 465
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:37.287571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WESLEY McCLENDON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nThe evidence was plenary to support the jury verdict. Defendant does not contend otherwise, although he has included in the record the evidence and the charge of the court to the jury. Neither of these is necessary for an understanding of the arguments presented. The two exceptions taken are to occurrences after the court had instructed the jury and they had begun their deliberation.\nThe first assignment of error is based on defendant\u2019s exception to the court\u2019s failure to declare a mistrial on its own motion when the jury foreman advised the court that the jury then stood 11 to 1 for guilty. After the jury had deliberated for some time, the jury returned to the courtroom and the court, in asking for their numerical position, said, \u201cMr. Foreman, sir, now, please follow the Court\u2019s instruction explicitly. The Court would like to know just the number now, one way or the other, how the jury stands; that\u2019s all now. Please, just the number, one way or the other.\u201d The foreman responded: \u201cWe have a vote of eleven for guilty, and one for not guilty.\u201d\nDefendant contends that the court should then, on its own motion, have declared a mistrial because the one juror voting for acquittal was being placed under undue pressure. In State v. Barnes, 243 N.C. 174, 90 S.E. 2d 321 (1955), the Court said: \u201cThe spontaneous statement of one of the jurors when the jury returned to the courtroom that the jury stood ten for conviction and two for acquittal was innocuous.\u201d Defendant has shown no prejudice. This assignment of error is overruled.\nBy his remaining assignment of error defendant contends that the court committed prejudicial error in its subsequent instructions to the jury relating to their duty to reach a verdict. The instructions are in accord with those approved by our Supreme Court. See State v. Thomas, 292 N.C. 527, 234 S.E. 2d 615 (1977). Defendant\u2019s contention that they placed undue pressure on the one juror is without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Kaye Webb, for the State.",
      "Keith M. Stroud, former Assistant Public Defender, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WESLEY McCLENDON\nNo. 7826SC116\n(Filed 11 July 1978)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 101.4\u2014 status of deliberations \u2014 statement by jury foreman \u2014 mistrial not required\nDefendant was not entitled to a mistrial when the jury foreman advised the court that the jury then stood 11 to 1 for guilty, since defendant failed to show that one juror voting for acquittal was being placed under undue pressure.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Friday, Judge. Judgment entered 30 September 1977, Superior Court, MECKLENBURG County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 May 1978.\nDefendant was charged with and convicted of armed robbery.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Kaye Webb, for the State.\nKeith M. Stroud, former Assistant Public Defender, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0230-01",
  "first_page_order": 258,
  "last_page_order": 259
}