{
  "id": 8526508,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH THOMAS EDMONDS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Edmonds",
  "decision_date": "1982-11-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 826SC411",
  "first_page": "359",
  "last_page": "360",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 359"
    }
  ],
  "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": "294 S.E. 2d 780",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 818",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526366
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0818-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 S.E. 2d 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526171
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/59/0236-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 S.E. 2d 802",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "59 N.C. App. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526512
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "361"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/59/0360-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 195,
    "char_count": 2591,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.717,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.834809282950982e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8989460389389498
    },
    "sha256": "672312275f9cd654939cda83f4df166e12c146b98c18e5026bcdb60e041a8359",
    "simhash": "1:4ca8471024592b34",
    "word_count": 424
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:54.350150+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and WELLS concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH THOMAS EDMONDS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WHICHARD, Judge.\nPursuant to Rule 9(c)(1), Rules of Appellate Procedure, defendant chose to file a stenographic transcript of the trial proceedings in lieu of a narration of the evidence. The appendix attached to his brief contains none of the material from the transcript essential to an understanding of/three of the four assignments of error brought forward. It is at least questionable whether the appendix material with regard to the remaining assignment suffices for a full understanding of the question presented.\nDefendant thus has not complied with Rule 28(b)(4), Rules of Appellate Procedure, which provides that when the stenographic transcript is used in lieu of a narration of the evidence, \u201cif there are portions of the transcript which must be reproduced verbatim in order to understand a question presented in the brief . . . such verbatim portions of the transcript shall be attached as appendixes to the brief.\u201d\nAs we noted in State v. Greene, 59 N.C. App. 360, 361, 296 S.E. 2d 802 (1982): \u201cFailure to observe the requirements of Rule 28(b)(4) constitutes a substantial impediment to the capacity of this Court to perform its functions. \u2018Rules of Appellate Procedure are mandatory and failure to observe them is grounds for dismissal of the appeal.\u2019 \u201d See also State v. Nickerson, 59 N.C. App. 236, 296 S.E. 2d 298 (1982); State v. Wilson, 58 N.C. App. 818, 294 S.E. 2d 780 (1982).\nBecause of defendant\u2019s failure to observe the requirements of Rule 9(c)(1) and Rule 28(b)(4), the appeal is dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.\nJudges VAUGHN and WELLS concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WHICHARD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth C. Bunting, for the State.",
      "Appellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Malcolm R. Hunter, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH THOMAS EDMONDS\nNo. 826SC411\n(Filed 2 November 1982)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 45; Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 159.1, 166\u2014 filing stenographic transcript of trial proceedings \u2014 dismissal for failure to follow rules\nBecause of defendant\u2019s failure to observe the requirements of G.S. 1A-1, Rule 9(c)(1) and G.S. 1A-1, Rule 28(b)(4) which deal with filing a stenographic transcript of the trial proceedings in lieu of a narration of the evidence, defendant\u2019s appeal was subject to dismissal.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 4 June 1980 in Superior Court, HALIFAX County. Certiorari allowed by the Court of Appeals on 16 November 1981. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1982.\nDefendant appeals from a judgment of imprisonment entered upon his conviction of armed robbery.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Elizabeth C. Bunting, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Malcolm R. Hunter, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0359-01",
  "first_page_order": 391,
  "last_page_order": 392
}