{
  "id": 8548135,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNELL L. CARTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1969-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 693SC399",
  "first_page": "74",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 74"
    }
  ],
  "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": "153 S.E. 2d 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 683",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565701
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0683-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1922,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20585119055203605
    },
    "sha256": "70cdcc69da50e571fdf3a62aa90f72bab9d9c0ebde31eceb3c105bb79096dfd4",
    "simhash": "1:09e8c62650742e6b",
    "word_count": 325
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:45:53.911218+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallaed, C.J., and HedricK, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNELL L. CARTER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Morris, J.\nThe record on appeal contains no exceptions nor assignments of error. Counsel for defendant candidly states in his brief that he has carefully studied the record and finds no error but asks this Court, in fairness to the defendant, to review the record. Counsel for defendant, as he felt it was his duty to do, has filed a complete record on appeal, including the evidence and the charge of the court.\nThe Supreme Court of North Carolina has held repeatedly that an appeal itself is an exception to the judgment and, even in the absence of exceptions in the record, presents the face of the record proper for review. State v. Elliott, 269 N.C. 683, 153 S.E. 2d 330 (1967), and cases there cited.\nWe have reviewed the record before us and find no prejudicial error.\nThis is another conspicuous illustration of the abuse of the unlimited right of appeal by an indigent defendant at the cost of the taxpayers.\nAffirmed.\nMallaed, C.J., and HedricK, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Morris, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.",
      "A. Louis Singleton for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONNELL L. CARTER\nNo. 693SC399\n(Filed 17 December 1969)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 appeal as exception to judgment\nAn appeal itself is an exception to tbe judgment and, even in tbe absence of exceptions in tbe record, presents tbe face of tbe record proper for review.\nAppeal by defendant from Bundy, J., 18 March 1969 Session of-Pitt Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged, under valid bills of indictment, with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and armed robbery. Upon a finding of defendant\u2019s indigency, counsel was appointed on 27 January 1969. To each charge defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The jury found him guilty as charged as to each offense. From judgments entered defendant appealed. The same counsel appointed for trial was appointed to perfect defendant\u2019s appeal.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Deputy Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.\nA. Louis Singleton for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0074-01",
  "first_page_order": 96,
  "last_page_order": 97
}