{
  "id": 8554640,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMMY KEE, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kee",
  "decision_date": "1969-04-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 6926SC10",
  "first_page": "508",
  "last_page": "510",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "4 N.C. App. 508"
    }
  ],
  "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": "157 S.E. 2d 335",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566320
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "162 S.E. 2d 583",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 N.C. App. 109",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/2/0109-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 3195,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.563,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20599502133135947
    },
    "sha256": "90e2266ae43aa628e0b5275831bf78841ae3dffb01e5b177ecc8035c0a1f1eee",
    "simhash": "1:178e774fd6971c39",
    "word_count": 532
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BRItt and Paricer, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMMY KEE, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mallard, C.J.\nDefendant contends that he was prejudiced by the cross-examination of the solicitor. Defendant was asked by the solicitor on cross-examination if he knew where Celester Williams was, and the defendant replied that he did. The court sustained defendant\u2019s objection at this point. The solicitor thereupon asked the defendant the following question: \u201cYou don\u2019t have Mr. Williams here as a witness in the case, do you?\u201d Defendant\u2019s counsel objected, and the court sustained the objection, to which the defendant excepted. A witness for the State had testified that the defendant had told him that Celester Williams had helped him commit the robbery under investigation. Defendant cites the cases of State v. Foster, 2 N.C. App. 109, 162 S.E. 2d 583, and State v. Miller, 271 N.C. 646, 157 S.E. 2d 335, in support of his contention that the two questions were prejudicial. In the Foster case, and also in the Miller case, the defendants were awarded new trials because of improper argument of the solicitor, and neither case supports the contention of the defendant. It is also noted that the court sustained defendant\u2019s objections; surely the defendant is not complaining because the court did what he asked. Also, we do not think the defendant was prejudiced by the mere asking of the questions. This assignment of error is without merit and is overruled.\nDefendant also complains that the court committed prejudicial error in its instruction to the jury, in that the court\u2019s charge weighed too heavily in favor of the State. We have carefully reviewed the charge, and when considered as a whole, we are of the opinion and so hold that the court fully, fairly and accurately instructed the jury in this case, and no prejudicial error appears.\nIn the trial we find\nNo error.\nBRItt and Paricer, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mallard, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.",
      "W. Herbert Brown, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMMY KEE, JR.\nNo. 6926SC10\n(Filed 30 April 1969)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 88\u2014 cross-examination of defendant as to whereabouts of a co-conspirator\nIn this prosecution for armed robbery in which a witness for the State testified that defendant bad told him that a certain person had helped him commit the robbery, defendant was not prejudiced when the solicitor asked him on cross-examination if he .knew where that person was and if he had that person as a witness in this case where the court sustained defendant\u2019s objections to both questions.\n3. Robbery \u00a7 5\u2014 instructions\nIn this armed robbery prosecution, the court\u2019s instructions did not weigh too heavily in favor of the State but were fair and accurate.\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, J., 2 September 1968 Schedule \u201cA\u201d Criminal Session of Superior Court of Mecklenburg County.\nDefendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with the felony of armed robbery. Defendant\u2019s plea was not guilty. The verdict of the jury was guilty as charged in the bill of indictment.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment in the State\u2019s prison for not less than twenty-five years nor more than thirty years, the defendant assigns error and appeals to the Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.\nW. Herbert Brown, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0508-01",
  "first_page_order": 528,
  "last_page_order": 530
}