{
  "id": 11273521,
  "name": "STATE v. CHARLIE HUNTLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Huntley",
  "decision_date": "1910-10-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "617",
  "last_page": "618",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "153 N.C. 617"
    }
  ],
  "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": 161,
    "char_count": 2061,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "sha256": "5d81807539753723e5413f1a461888be43cca878819d9c478faf12611719da4e",
    "simhash": "1:79c8c1b05e5a4c38",
    "word_count": 361
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:54.157289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CHARLIE HUNTLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe only exception to the evidence is to the refusal of the court to permit the introduction of the warrant of the justice of the peace under which the defendant was arrested. We see no error in this, as it is not shown to be prejudicial.\nThe sixteenth and seventeenth exceptions relate to a prayer of the defendant, marked \u201cmodified and given.\u201d\nIt does not appear in the record here in what respect the prayer was modified. It does not appear that the court was requested to put the charge in writing and no exception is taken on that account. The case on appeal was not made up by the judge but by the solicitor and appellant\u2019s counsel and signed by them.\nIt was appellant\u2019s duty to set out the modification. Not being before us we cannot pass upon its correctness.\nThe only other exception relied upon in the brief is the 22d and that we think is without merit.\nThe charge of the court followed well settled precedents of this Court and fully and fairly presented every phase of the case to the jury. The evidence well warranted the verdict rendered.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General and G. L. Jones for State.",
      "J. A. Lockhart and T. L. Caudle for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CHARLIE HUNTLEY.\n(Filed 26 October, 1910.)\n1. Murder \u2014 Justice\u2019s Warrant of Arrest \u2014 Evidence.\nUpon tbis trial for murder, tbe refusal to permit tbe introduction in evidence of tbe warrant of tbe justice of tbe peace under which tbe prisoner was arrested was not erroneous.\n2. Instructions \u2014 Modification\u2014Record\u2014Appeal and Error.\nTbe trial judge not having been requested to put bis charge in writing, and there being no exception on that account, an exception to tbe modification of a requested prayer for instruction will not be considered on appeal when it does not appear in what respect tbe modification was made or bow it may have affected tbe prayer refused.\nAppeal from W. J. Adams, J., at tbe Fall Term, 1910, of Anson.\nIndictment for murder.\nTbe defendant was tried for murder in second degree and convicted of manslaughter. From the judgment of the court defendant appeals.\nAttorney-General and G. L. Jones for State.\nJ. A. Lockhart and T. L. Caudle for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0617-02",
  "first_page_order": 665,
  "last_page_order": 666
}