{
  "id": 8655462,
  "name": "STATE v. BILL JUDD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Judd",
  "decision_date": "1924-11-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "831",
  "last_page": "831",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "188 N.C. 831"
    }
  ],
  "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": "171 N. C., 823",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 818",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658969
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0818-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 112,
    "char_count": 989,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20764087018200675
    },
    "sha256": "a1b08e02c347590afc99102d948c5d779f8f3e9f6efff1322a54a88db0dd8bed",
    "simhash": "1:1d6e037531bc80f8",
    "word_count": 169
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:44:41.585516+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BILL JUDD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\nThe defendant moved in this Court for a new trial, on-the ground of newly discovered \"evidence; but it has often been held that a new trial will not be awarded in a criminal action on this ground. S. v. Jenkins, 182 N. C., 818.\nThere was sufficient evidence to justify the verdict, and the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit was properly overruled. S. v. Carlson, 171 N. C., 823.\nNo particular formula is prescribed for the definition of a reasonable doubt, and no error is pointed out in his Honor\u2019s charge.\nWe find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "A. G. Bay for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BILL JUDD.\n(Filed 26 November, 1924.)\nAppeal by defendant from Barnhill, J'., at July Term, 1924, of Chatham.\nTbe defendant was indicted for a violation of the prohibition law. There were, three counts in the bill, upon which the .jury returned a general verdict, finding the defendant guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nA. G. Bay for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0831-01",
  "first_page_order": 901,
  "last_page_order": 901
}