{
  "id": 8526496,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RAY SHACKLEFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shackleford",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 828SC393",
  "first_page": "357",
  "last_page": "358",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 357"
    }
  ],
  "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": "146 S.E. 2d 666",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561846
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0606-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 S.E. 2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557944
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0293-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2305,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31922247204373694
    },
    "sha256": "be80bbdaf178fec3825cdf203c34dd1afd5c79df1196f0adbb3285155fa65033",
    "simhash": "1:902d66da94725e37",
    "word_count": 373
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:54.350150+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Johnson concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RAY SHACKLEFORD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HILL, Judge.\nIn this case, the defendant was not present for jury selection. The case was called on Wednesday afternoon, 4 November 1981. After giving preliminary instructions to the prospective jurors, the court explained defendant\u2019s absence, stating: \u201cNow, Mr. Shackleford, as is apparent, is not in court due to some misinformation that he received from his attorney and from the District Attorney\u2019s office as to when his case was going to be called.\u201d Without comment or objection by defendant\u2019s counsel, the jury was selected. Trial resumed the following morning with defendant present.\nIn every criminal prosecution, the accused has the right to be present at every stage of the trial, unless he waives the right. State v. Hayes, 291 N.C. 293, 230 S.E. 2d 146 (1976). In non-capital felony cases, only defendant may waive the right. In misdemeanor cases, defendant may, in addition, waive his right through his counsel with the consent of the court. State v. Ferebee, 266 N.C. 606, 146 S.E. 2d 666 (1966).\nHere, defendant was charged with felonious larceny and breaking or entering. Although his attorney selected the jury in defendant\u2019s absence, the defendant retained his right to be present. Therefore, defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nJudges Arnold and Johnson concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HILL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilson Hayman, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler and James R. Glover, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLES RAY SHACKLEFORD\nNo. 828SC393\n(Filed 2 November 1982)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 98\u2014 defendant\u2019s right to be present at jury selection\nA defendant charged with felonious breaking and entering and larceny had a right to be present for selection of the jury unless he personally waived that right, and defendant did not waive such right where his absence was caused by misinformation he received from his attorney and from the prosecutor\u2019s office as to when his case was to be called.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Bruce, Judge. Judgment entered 6 November 1981 in Superior Court, LENOIR County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 October 1982.\nDefendant was convicted of one count of felonious larceny and of one count of breaking or entering. He appeals the judgment imposing a prison sentence and fine.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Wilson Hayman, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler and James R. Glover, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0357-01",
  "first_page_order": 389,
  "last_page_order": 390
}