{
  "id": 8548998,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BERNARD GAITEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gaiten",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7026SC222",
  "first_page": "66",
  "last_page": "67",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 66"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 204,
    "char_count": 2852,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.606,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.736152507775605e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45499293588159
    },
    "sha256": "079418d8b8980b91fb22d3b1ab3f9eb77294d1a06c42739b53139a919707db8c",
    "simhash": "1:55801286647c2fe7",
    "word_count": 493
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Britt and Graham, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BERNARD GAITEN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BeocK, J.\nDefendant\u2019s exceptions grouped under his assignments of error Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 8 are not set out in his brief; therefore, they are deemed abandoned by him. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Couri of Appeals of North Carolina.\nAssignments of error Nos. 1, 2, and 6 relate to exceptions taken to the admission and exclusion of evidence. These assignments of error present no new or unusual question and we see no useful purpose in a detailed discussion. It is sufficient to say that we find no prejudicial error in the rulings of the trial judge which are challenged by these assignments of error, and they are, therefore, overruled.\nAssignment of error No. 7 is to the refusal of the trial judge to allow the court reporter to read to the jury certain portions of the testimony of the prosecuting witness. During defendant\u2019s cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, defense counsel asked the witness if he had not testified to a certain fact on direct examination; when the witness denied that he had, counsel asked the court reporter to find the testimony and read it back. The trial judge intervened and advised counsel that he should proceed with the cross-examination. We agree with the trial judge\u2019s action upon this matter. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAssignments of error Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are to portions of the trial judge\u2019s charge to the jury. When the charge is considered as a whole, which must be done in order to gather its meaning as conveyed to the jury, we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nBritt and Graham, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BeocK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Murray, for the State.",
      "Hicks and Harris, by Richard F. Harris, III, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BERNARD GAITEN\nNo. 7026SC222\n(Filed 6 May 1970)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 45\u2014 abandonment of assignments of error\nAssignments of error not set out in tbe brief are deemed abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule No. 28.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 88; Witnesses \u00a7 8\u2014 cross-examination \u2014 refusal to allow court reporter to read testimony given on direct examination\nIn this prosecution for common law robbery, tbe trial court did not err in refusing to allow tbe court reporter to read to tbe jury certain portions of tbe testimony of the prosecuting witness after tbe witness denied on cross-examination that be bad testified to a certain fact, and counsel asked tbe court reporter to find tbe testimony and read it back.\nAppeal by defendant from Beal, J., 17 November 1969, Schedule D Session, MeCKLENbuRG Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the offense of common law robbery from the person of Henry James Reeves on 7 July 1969. Upon his plea of not guilty defendant was tried by jury which found him guilty as charged. From the verdict and judgment of imprisonment for a term of five years defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Murray, for the State.\nHicks and Harris, by Richard F. Harris, III, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0066-01",
  "first_page_order": 90,
  "last_page_order": 91
}
