{
  "id": 8521335,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMUEL (PETE) MALLOY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Malloy",
  "decision_date": "1981-08-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 8116SC8",
  "first_page": "369",
  "last_page": "370",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 369"
    }
  ],
  "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": "209 S.E. 2d 458",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 191",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564117
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0191-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 44",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "54"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 453",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564264
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0453-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2402,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.808,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5230474826910758
    },
    "sha256": "c2d73e394c1b79f142470423460554beb73a295835e61d4f830c1a53cfed6942",
    "simhash": "1:d924c74d0db92f69",
    "word_count": 398
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:41.579477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge MORRIS and Judge WEBB concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMUEL (PETE) MALLOY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nThe sole issue presented is whether the not guilty verdict on the assault charge barred subsequent prosecution of the robbery charge on grounds of double jeopardy. It did not.\nIf each of two criminal offenses, as a matter of law, requires proof of some fact, proof of which fact is not required for conviction of the other offense, the two offenses are not the same and a former jeopardy with reference to the one does not bar a subsequent prosecution for the other.\nState v. Overman, 269 N.C. 453, 465, 153 S.E. 2d 44, 54 (1967). Conviction of misdemeanor assault requires proof of infliction of or attempt to inflict serious injury, G.S. 14-33(b)(1), while conviction of common law robbery does not. Conviction of common law robbery requires proof that property was taken from another against his will by violence or putting him in fear, State v. Black, 286 N.C. 191, 209 S.E. 2d 458 (1974), while conviction of misdemeanor assault does not. Thus, each offense for which defendant was tried required proof of a fact not required for conviction of the other; and acquittal on the assault charge did not bar prosecution for the robbery.\nNo error.\nChief Judge MORRIS and Judge WEBB concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney General Lisa Shepherd, for the State.",
      "Cabell J. Regan for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMUEL (PETE) MALLOY\nNo. 8116SC8\n(Filed 4 August 1981)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 26.5\u2014 acquittal on assault charge \u2014trial for common law robbery \u2014 no double jeopardy\nThe jury\u2019s acquittal of defendant on a charge of misdemeanor assault inflicting serious injury did not bar the subsequent prosecution of defendant on a charge of common law robbery, since each offense required proof of a fact not required for conviction of the other.\nAppeal by defendant from Battle, Judge. Judgment entered 6 August 1980 in Superior Court, SCOTLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 May 1981.\nDefendant was indicted for common law robbery and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. At trial the assault charge was reduced to misdemeanor assault inflicting serious injury.\nThe jury returned a not guilty verdict on the assault charge but was unable to agree on the robbery charge. A mistrial was declared, and defendant was thereafter re-tried and convicted of the robbery.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney General Lisa Shepherd, for the State.\nCabell J. Regan for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0369-01",
  "first_page_order": 397,
  "last_page_order": 398
}
