{
  "id": 8549275,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES R. CHISHOLM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Chisholm",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7026SC145",
  "first_page": "80",
  "last_page": "81",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 80"
    }
  ],
  "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": "196 S.E. 829",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628995
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 185",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8576114
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0712-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 3260,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20587319955719427
    },
    "sha256": "7f49e8799b26240ff29613a819a045a051abdb0a82a8ab4bcad54313370481d0",
    "simhash": "1:93dbf131bb2a9460",
    "word_count": 541
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Vaughn, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES R. CHISHOLM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "M ORRIS, J!\nDefendant excepts to and assigns as error certain portions of the charge of the court with respect to the doctrine of recent possession.\nThe instruction complained of cannot be distinguished from the one disapproved in State v. Hayes, 273 N.C. 712, 161 S.E. 2d 185 (1968). There the Court held the instruction to be not only confusing but susceptible of the interpretation by the jury that the defendant had the burden of rebutting the presumption of guilt raised by his possession of the recently stolen automobile. The jury was not clearly instructed that the presumption which arises from the defendant\u2019s possession of the recently stolen property \u201cis to be considered by the jury merely as an evidential fact, along with the other evidence in the case, in determining whether the State has carried the burden of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the defendant\u2019s guilt,\u201d State v. Hayes, supra, citing State v. Baker, 213 N.C. 524, 196 S.E. 829 (1938), and does not place upon defendant the burden of rebutting the presumption.\nThis instruction constituted prejudicial error and entitles defendant to a new trial. Although defendant excepted to and assigned as error the denial of his motion as for nonsuit at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence, he did not bring these exceptions forward in his brief and they are deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. Although we do not discuss this assignment of error, we have examined the record and are of the opinion that the evidence for the State was more than ample for submission to the jury. Because there must be a new trial we do not discuss other assignments of error which are not likely to recur.\nNew trial.\nMallard, C.J., and Vaughn, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "M ORRIS, J!"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.",
      "Peter H. Gerns for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES R. CHISHOLM\nNo. 7026SC145\n(Filed 6 May 1970)\n1. Larceny \u00a7 8\u2014 doctrine of recent possession \u2014 instructions \u2014\u2014 burden of proof\nIn this prosecution for automobile larceny, the trial court committed prejudicial error in giving an instruction susceptible to the interpretation that defendant had the burden of rebutting the presumption of guilt raised by his possession of the recently stolen automobile, and in failing to instruct the jury that the presumption which arises from defendant\u2019s possession of the recently stolen property is to be considered merely as an evidential fact, along with other evidence in the case, in determining whether the State has carried the burden of satisfying the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of defendant\u2019s guilt.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 166\u2014 abandonment of assignments of error\nAssignments of error not brought forward and argued in the brief are deemed abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule No. 28.\nAppeal by defendant from Beal, S.J., 20 October 1969, Special Criminal Session, Superior Court of MecKLENBurg County.\nDefendant was charged in an indictment proper in form with the larceny of an automobile having a value of $300. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant appeals from the judgment entered.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.\nPeter H. Gerns for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0080-01",
  "first_page_order": 104,
  "last_page_order": 105
}