{
  "id": 8523074,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD M. BLACKWELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blackwell",
  "decision_date": "1990-07-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 8929SC1053",
  "first_page": "359",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1631,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.698,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7505474257379484
    },
    "sha256": "2bbe86dde24bc72076f803ca678c1172afce4e1e8c65e8fda33e8decd1389f94",
    "simhash": "1:8143e651f563636f",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:52.620321+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and COZORT concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD M. BLACKWELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nIn appealing his conviction of driving while impaired defendant makes two contentions, neither of which has merit. First, he contends that the charge must be dismissed because the Magistrate failed to inform him of his right to be released pending trial and to permit him to obtain a blood test. In considering defendant\u2019s motion the Superior Court, upon conflicting evidence, found facts which support the conclusion that defendant\u2019s pre-trial release rights were not violated. Defendant\u2019s other contention is that during the trial the judge prejudiced the jury against him by making remarks that indicated his bias against him. Viewed in the context of the trial, most of the remarks complained of were made in a permissible effort to move the trial along and in our opinion none of them affected the verdict.\nNo error.\nJudges Arnold and COZORT concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Hal F. Askins, for the State.",
      "C. K. Brown, Jr. for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DONALD M. BLACKWELL\nNo. 8929SC1053\n(Filed 3 July 1990)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 375 (NCI4th[; Arrest and Bail \u00a7 144 (NCI4th) \u2014 driving while impaired \u2014 pretrial release \u2014 comments of judge\u2014 no error\nA DWI defendant\u2019s pretrial release rights were not violated, comments made during the trial by the judge were made in a permissible effort to move the trial along, and none of the comments affected the verdict.\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7\u00a7 91 et seq.\nAPPEAL by defendant from judgment entered 8 March 1989 by Judge Claude S. Sitton in TRANSYLVANIA County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 May 1990.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Hal F. Askins, for the State.\nC. K. Brown, Jr. for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0359-01",
  "first_page_order": 389,
  "last_page_order": 389
}
