{
  "id": 8554453,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEE THOMAS HAMILTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hamilton",
  "decision_date": "1979-02-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7820SC918",
  "first_page": "687",
  "last_page": "688",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 N.C. App. 687"
    }
  ],
  "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": "230 S.E. 2d 425",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550967
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "409 U.S. 995",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6433152,
        6433005
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/409/0995-02",
        "/us/409/0995-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 111",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572889
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0551-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2205,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.765,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20599154622528185
    },
    "sha256": "f5b96d47072f0d7494f35b6ceafffa5fe87489e13865b90ff4e999a89f76f7b2",
    "simhash": "1:aadaebb09a281ff6",
    "word_count": 378
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:00.834910+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEE THOMAS HAMILTON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nThe defendant\u2019s only assignment of error pertains to the charge. He argues the court did not properly define assault on a female. In its charge concerning assault on a female, the court said that one of the things the State must prove is \u201cthat the defendant assaulted Patricia McClendon, that he at least laid his hands on her without her consent.\u201d Assuming this was error, we hold it did not harm the defendant. In this case all the evidence including the evidence of the defendant showed there was a completed act of intercourse. The issue was whether this intercourse was with the consent of the prosecuting witness. The charge of assault on a female should not have been submitted to the jury. State v. Bryant, 280 N.C. 551, 187 S.E. 2d 111, cert. denied, 409 U.S. 995 (1972). It was error favorable to the defendant and we hold he was not prejudiced by this charge. State v. Small, 31 N.C. App. 556, 230 S.E. 2d 425 (1976).\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Tiare Smiley Farris, for the State.",
      "Joe P. McCollum, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEE THOMAS HAMILTON\nNo. 7820SC918\n(Filed 6 February 1979)\nRape \u00a7 6.1\u2014 second degree rape \u2014 instruction on assault on female improper \u2014 defendant not prejudiced\nIn a prosecution for second degree rape where all of the evidence of defendant showed there was a completed act of intercourse and the issue was whether there was consent, any error in the trial court\u2019s charge on assault on a female was not prejudicial to defendant since that charge should not have been submitted to the jury and any error was favorable to defendant.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Walker (Hal HJ, Judge. Judgment entered 16 May 1978 in Superior Court, UNION County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 January 1979.\nThe defendant appeals from a conviction of second degree rape. The State offered evidence sufficient to support a conviction of rape. The defendant testified he had intercourse with the prosecuting witness, but that it was with her consent. The court submitted to the jury charges of first and second degree rape, assault with intent to commit rape, and assault on a female.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Tiare Smiley Farris, for the State.\nJoe P. McCollum, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0687-01",
  "first_page_order": 715,
  "last_page_order": 716
}