{
  "id": 8661962,
  "name": "STATE v. JACKSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jackson",
  "decision_date": "1901-12-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "558",
  "last_page": "559",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. 558"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2178,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.427,
    "sha256": "4a3600bc8ca2e77b82a10af554ecb63b50d00ea213c02ca88e44364d5078a6c5",
    "simhash": "1:969526c40eeadd0e",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JACKSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clare, J.\nA careful examination of each of tbe exceptions made by tbe prisoner reveals no question tbat requires discussion, or tbat has not already been passed upon in some previous case. Tbe exceptions evidently were taken out of abundant caution, and sbow tbat tbe prisoner\u2019s counsel were alert to do tbeir utmost duty in a defense wbicb they conducted by assignment of tbe Court and without pecuniary recompense. They have done tbeir full duty. Upon tbe trial, few points of law were presented, and these were ruled correctly by tbe careful presiding Judge. Tbe controversy was almost solely upon tbe facts, and what they were, and what they proved were matters exclusively in tbe province of tbe jury, and not reviewable here.\nTbe point perhaps most earnestly pressed here was tbe following: Tbe prisoner asked tbe Court to instruct tbe jury, \u201cWhere tbe act or language of a person may be attributed to two motives, one criminal, tbe other not, the law will ascribe it to tbat wbicb is innocent.\u201d Tbe Court gave this, but added: \u201cThis is a general rule, and applies in this case, unless tbe testimony convince tbe jury tbe criminal motive is tbe true one.\u201d Tbe prisoner excepted to tbe addition, but, as it simply amounts to telling tbe jury tbat such, presumption is rebuttable, we find no error therein.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clare, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "A. L. Quickel, and Brown Shepherd, for B. D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "D. W. Robinson, for tbe defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JACKSON.\n(Filed December 10, 1901.)\n.'INTENT \u2014 Motion\u2014Criminal Intent.\nWhere the court, at request of prisoner, charges that \u201cwhere the act or language of a person may he attributed to two motive\u2019s, one criminal, the other not, the law will ascribe it to that which is innocent,\u201d but added that \u201cthis is a general rule and applies in this case, unless the testimony convinces the jury the criminal motive is the true one,\u201d the addition to the charge was not erroneous.\nINDICTMENT against Andrew Jackson for burglary, heard 'by Judge W. A. Holce and a jury, at September Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Lincoln County. From a verdict \u2022of guilty of burglary in the first degree and judgment 'thereon, the prisoner appealed.\nA. L. Quickel, and Brown Shepherd, for B. D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nD. W. Robinson, for tbe defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0558-01",
  "first_page_order": 592,
  "last_page_order": 593
}