{
  "id": 11269959,
  "name": "STATE v. CHARLES and FRANK SNIPES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Snipes",
  "decision_date": "1914-04-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "440",
  "last_page": "440",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 N.C. 440"
    }
  ],
  "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": 148,
    "char_count": 1595,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0091961852718293e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5417171039701543
    },
    "sha256": "71f601d88658d61d47d9216f8b48b3390b23758d99668452ad755a30a2a4385b",
    "simhash": "1:552afdc679749615",
    "word_count": 272
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:23:48.430184+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CHARLES and FRANK SNIPES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Ctteiam.\nThere was evidence to justify the verdict, and, on careful perusal of the record, we find no reason for disturbing the results of the trial. It was very properly admitted in the brief of the appellant\u2019s counsel that the rulings objected to were matters very largely in the discretion of the trial court, and assuredly there is shown no such abuse of his Honor\u2019s discretion as to present a question of law for our decision.\nIt was chiefly urged that the cross-examination of defendant was allowed to take too wide a range in seeking to develop facts as to defendant\u2019s conduct on the night of the occurrence and .some time after the commission of the alleged offense; but we fail to find that there was any statement obtained from defendant in any way prejudicial to. his cause.\nA careful examination of the record shows that the questions objected to were either not responded to at all or were answered by defendant in his own favor.\nWe must hold that no reversible error has been shown, and the \u25a0 judgment on the verdict be affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Ctteiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Bickett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.",
      "E. B. Jones, W. T. Wilson, and L. M. Swinh for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CHARLES and FRANK SNIPES.\n(Filed 15 April, 1914.)\nAppeal and Error \u2014 Court\u2019s Discretion.\nThe appeal in this case being from rulings of the trial court, is of matters largely within his discretion, and no error is found.\nAppeal by defendant from Devin, Jat January Term, 1914, of Foestth.\nIndictment for resisting an officer.\nYerdict of guilty. Judgment, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney-General Bickett and Assistant Attorney-General Calvert for the State.\nE. B. Jones, W. T. Wilson, and L. M. Swinh for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0440-01",
  "first_page_order": 482,
  "last_page_order": 482
}