{
  "id": 8661282,
  "name": "STATE v. B. J. ROBINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1899-03-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "801",
  "last_page": "802",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. 801"
    }
  ],
  "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": "119 N. C., 958",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N. C., 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 N. C., 959",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1917,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.421,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.343614335989748e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3360572373138357
    },
    "sha256": "e8549e9225f38f96ec92c377b28e14ad22f35883b3f79ce9e87b3f06d15012be",
    "simhash": "1:efbedb1a6a2e8401",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:58.946028+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. B. J. ROBINSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Eaibcloth, O. J.\nThe defendant and Eliza Ward were indicted for an assault on Laura Robinson. At the trial, Ward introduced witnesses, but Robinson introduced no evidence. At the close of the evidence,- Robinson\u2019s counsel claimed the right to open and close the argument. His Honor, as a matter of discretion, allowed the State to open and close, and Robinson excepted.\nIt is admitted that his Honor\u2019s ruling,, except under Rule 3, is final and not reviewable. Rule 6, 119 N. C., 959.\nRule 3 is that in all cases, civil or criminal, where no evidence is introduced by the defendant, the right of reply and conclusion shall belong to- his counsel. 89 N. C., 608, Rule 3. This question of practice has not been heretofore presented. It is the recollection of the members of this Court that the practice has been, that where one defendant introduces evidence, that gives the right to begin and conclude the argument to the State, and we adopt that view as the better rule. If there were several defendants, the rule claimed by the defendant would be inconvenient.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Eaibcloth, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M essi s. Zeb. V. Walser, Attorney General, and Douglass & Simms, for the State.",
      ". No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. B. J. ROBINSON.\n(Decided March 14, 1899).\nPractice \u2014 Opening and Conclusion.\nWhere there are several defendants, and one of them introduces evidence, that gives the right to begin and conclude the argument to the State. Rule 8 (119 N. C., 958) construed accordingly.\nINDICTMENT for assault and battery, tried before Bryan, J., at September Term, 1898, of Watie Superior Court.\nDefendant and Eliza Ward were indicted for assault and battery on Laura Robinson. Eliza Ward introduced evi-deuce \u2014 the defendant Robinson introduced none; and his counsel claimed the right to open and close the argument. His Honor, as matter of discretion, allowed the State to open and conclude. Defendant excepted.\nYerdict of guilty. Judgment and appeal.\nM essi s. Zeb. V. Walser, Attorney General, and Douglass & Simms, for the State.\n. No counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0801-01",
  "first_page_order": 829,
  "last_page_order": 830
}