{
  "id": 8659645,
  "name": "STATE v. JESSE HINNANT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hinnant",
  "decision_date": "1897-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "572",
  "last_page": "573",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "120 N.C. 572"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 1049",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/1049-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N. C., 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683459
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/89/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 748",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653902
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0748-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 850",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651691
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0850-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1634,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.449,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.138363859351185e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4732395595264434
    },
    "sha256": "8ba5382858e47cd9d1b3716c6bdeddfec83c65890faa129fd8285b1ca66aa0ac",
    "simhash": "1:915bcef97ef229b4",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:07:11.774475+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JESSE HINNANT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faieoloth, O. J.:\nThe defendant was indicted for carrying a concealed weapon. He admitted that he purchased a pistol at a store and put it in his pocket and carried it home.\nThe only question sent to the jury was the intent with which the pistol was carried. Plis Honor charged the jury that they were the sole judges of the intent, and that if defendant put the pistol in his pocket only to carry it home he was not guilty, but if they believed from the evidence that he did so with inteat to conceal it while carrying it, he would be guilty; also, that they must not consider the evidence of what occurred at the corn shucking.\nThe question was properly left-to the jury. State v. Dixon, 114 N. C., 850; State v. Pigford, 117 N. C., 748. The Statute raises the presumption of criminal intent, and it is for the defendant to rebut the presumption, which, in the opinion of the jury, he failed to do. State v. McManus, 89 N. C., 555; State v. Lilly, 116 N. C., 1049.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faieoloth, O. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Attorney General Zeb Y. Walser, for the State.",
      "No counsel, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JESSE HINNANT.\nIndictment for Carrying Concealed Weapon \u2014 Intent\u2014Question for the Jury.\nWhere, in the trial of an indictment for carrying a concealed weapon, the defendant admitted that he carried a pistol home \u201cin his pocket,\u201d the presumption was, under the Statute, that he carried it with intent to conceal it, and it was a question for the jury whether the evidence rebutted such presumption.\nINDICTMENT for carrying a concealed weapon, tried before Graham, J., and a jury, at November Term, 1896, of Wilson Superior Court. The defendant was convicted and appealed.\nMr. Attorney General Zeb Y. Walser, for the State.\nNo counsel, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0572-01",
  "first_page_order": 600,
  "last_page_order": 601
}