{
  "id": 8549677,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELVIS PULLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pulley",
  "decision_date": "1969-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 6910SC351",
  "first_page": "285",
  "last_page": "288",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 285"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S.E. 2d 729",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562749
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219561
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 740",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563824
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0323-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 318,
    "char_count": 6041,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.034489097263531e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3738063493277021
    },
    "sha256": "f9f9dfba07b369c5ce6614e0b2f6641fa1eeb373566cc354795f2dae6d599abb",
    "simhash": "1:114adc235a139c74",
    "word_count": 996
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:43.915660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MallaRD, C.J., and BRItt, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELVIS PULLEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, J.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment, of error is that his constitutional rights were violated in that counsel was not appointed to represent him until after the preliminary hearing at which he was bound over to the superior court. This assignment of error is overruled. Counsel was appointed to represent defendant, an indigent, within eight days after his arrest and more than five months prior to his trial in superior court. Nothing in the record indicates that any right of the-defendant was in the slightest degree prejudiced by the fact that he did not have counsel during the first eight days following his arrest. Here, as in Gasque v. State, 271 N.C. 323, 156 S.E. 2d 740, \u201c(t)here is nothing in the record before us to indicate that appellant was asked any question by the committing inferior judge or that he made any statement of any kind, whatsoever before the committing inferior judge. No evidence of the preliminary hearing was introduced at the trial in the Superior Court. No evidence of an admission or confession by the appellant was admitted at the trial in the Superior Court.\u201d\nAppellant also assigns as error the overruling of his motion for nonsuit. In this case, the State relied upon circumstantial evidence. \u201cAn appeal from the refusal of defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit in a case in which the state relies upon circumstantial evidence presents the question whether the record, considered in the light most favorable to the state, discloses substantial evidence of all material elements constituting the offense for which the accused was tried.\u201d 3 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 176, p. 151. In the present case, considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the record discloses substantial evidence of all material elements constituting the offense for which appellant was tried. It was for the jury, and not for the court, to determine whether the evidence was such as to exclude every reasonable hypotheses except that of guilt. State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E. 2d 431. There was no error in overruling appellant\u2019s motion for nonsuit.\nAppellant\u2019s final assignment of error, addressed to the charge of the court to the jury, has been abandoned since no reason or argument is stated or authority cited in support thereof in appellant\u2019s brief. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals. In any event, the exception upon which this assignment of error purports to be based refers only to those pages in the record where the court\u2019s charge in its entirety appears. An assignment of error must be based on an appropriate exception and should show specifically what question is intended to be presented for consideration without the necessity of going beyond the assignment of error itself. \u201cA mere reference in the assignment of error to the record page where the error may be discovered is not sufficient.\u201d Lewis v. Parker, 268 N.C. 436, 150 S.E. 2d 729.\nIn the entire trial, we find\nNo error.\nMallaRD, C.J., and BRItt, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.",
      "Malcolm B. Grandy for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELVIS PULLEY\nNo. 6910SC351\n(Filed 2 July 1969)\nt. Constitutional Law \u00a7 83\u2014 right to counsel \u2014 preliminary hearing\nIndigent defendant\u2019s constitutional rights were not violated in that counsel was not appointed to represent him until after the preliminary hearing at which he was bound over to superior court, counsel being appointed for defendant within eight days after his arrest and more than five months prior to his trial.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 176\u2014 review of nonsuit \u2014 circumstantial evidence\nAn appeal from the refusal of defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit in a case in which the State relies upon circumstantial evidence presents the question whether the record, considered in light most favorable to the State, discloses substantial evidence of all material elements constituting the offense for which accused was tried.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 106\u2014 nonsuit \u2014 consideration of evidence \u2014 function of jury\nIt is for the jury, and not for the court, to determine whether the evidence is such as to exclude every reasonable hypotheses except that of guilt.\n4. Criminal Haw \u00a7 166\u2014 the brief \u2014 abandonment of assignments\nAssignment of error is deemed abandoned where no' reason or argument is stated or authority cited in support thereof in appellant\u2019s brief. Rule of Practice in the Court of Appeals No. 28.\n5. Criminal Haw \u00a7 161\u2014 requisites of assignment of error\nAn assignment of error must be based on an appropriate exception and should show specifically what question is intended to be presented for consideration without the necessity of going beyond the assignment of error itself.\nOn Certiorari from Hobgood, J., 26 September 1968 Session of Wake Superior Court.\nOn 10 April 1968 defendant was arrested on a warrant charging him with felonious breaking and entering and larceny. After preliminary hearing before a justice of the peace, he was bound over to superior court. On 18 April 1968, upon a finding of the defendant\u2019s indigency, the judge of superior court appointed counsel to represent him. Defendant was tried at the 26 September 1968 Session of Wake Superior Court upon a bill of indictment which charged him with felonious breaking and entering, larceny, and receiving. At the trial he was represented by his court-appointed counsel and pleaded not guilty. Upon close of the State\u2019s evidence, the court nonsuited the counts in the bill of indictment charging larceny and receiving. The jury found defendant guilty of felonious breaking and entering, and the court thereupon sentenced defendant as a youthful offender, under the provisions of G.S. 148-49.4, for a maximum term of eighteen months. Defendant gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, but failed to perfect his appeal within the time prescribed by law. Defendant then filed a petition for certiorari to perfect a delayed appeal, which was allowed by the Court of Appeals on 28 March 1969.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.\nMalcolm B. Grandy for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0285-01",
  "first_page_order": 307,
  "last_page_order": 310
}
