{
  "id": 8653840,
  "name": "STATE v. ANDY COLLINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Collins",
  "decision_date": "1897-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "667",
  "last_page": "668",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 N.C. 667"
    }
  ],
  "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": "73 N. C., 26",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683864
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/73/0026-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 135,
    "char_count": 1799,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3935153267513472e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6432672329545082
    },
    "sha256": "81b9cd3574db78c5f547f873189a1afe2dadcc217b4078cdda5479151cb96ebc",
    "simhash": "1:f67f5fe22fdad636",
    "word_count": 290
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:04.541275+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ANDY COLLINS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "FaiRcloth, C. J.:\nDefendants Andy Collins, Charlie Collins and others, were indicted for larceny.\nBurgess, a witness for the State, testified that defendant, Charlie Collins, told him that defendant, Andy, \u201cgot these goods for him out of Hall\u2019s store\u201d and described the manner in which they entered the store, &c. The defendant, Andy, the only appellant, objected to these declarations of Charlie. The objection was overruled and the evidence admitted, and Andy excepted. This was error and is the only exception necessary to consider. Those declarations were competent against Charlie, and if his Honor had instructed the jury that they were competent only against Charlie, and not against Andy, that would not have been erroneous, but no such instruction was given, appearing in the record. Declarations by one defendant, being competent only against him, may tend to show his co-defendant\u2019s guilt, but that does not make them incompetent as to the party making them. State v. Brite, 73 N. C., 26.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "FaiRcloth, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Zeb V. Walser, Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Mr. J. F. Ray, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ANDY COLLINS.\nIndictment for Larceny \u2014 Trial\u2014Evidence\u2014Declarations of Co-Defendant.\nDeclarations of one of two defendants jointly on trial for larceny are admissible only as against tlie party, malting them and, if admitted, it is error not to instruct the jury that such declarations are incompetent as to the other defendant.\nIndictMENT against Andy Collins and Charles Collins for larceny, tried before Norwood, J., and a jury at Fall Term, 1897, of Macon Superior Court. The defendants were convicted and Andy Collins appealed, assigning as error the admission of declarations of his co-defendant as to the part .appellant took in the robbery of the store of the prosecutor, Hale.\nMr. Zeb V. Walser, Attorney General, for the State.\nMr. J. F. Ray, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0667-01",
  "first_page_order": 697,
  "last_page_order": 698
}