{
  "id": 8632696,
  "name": "STATE v. HENRY CHARLES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Charles",
  "decision_date": "1928-04-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "868",
  "last_page": "869",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "195 N.C. 868"
    }
  ],
  "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": "189 N. C., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654245
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0349-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1695,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.607227377759291e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49017799879452434
    },
    "sha256": "40f1c26eadb61727bb03bf06cdbca9de8e76702d67eb172268c3c0d6e0d45ac7",
    "simhash": "1:0ebf8928d09c9faf",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:22:12.241767+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HENRY CHARLES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nThe three counts in the indictment charge the defendant with having received on 15 December, 1927, certain goods, chattels and moneys, knowing them to have been stolen. He was acquitted on the last two counts and convicted on the first. From the sentence pronounced he appealed, assigning error.\nThere was evidence that the stolen goods had been delivered to the defendant on different occasions, and for this reason he made a motion to quash the indictment and to require the solicitor to elect as to the count on which he would proceed. Both motions were declined. It will be noted that the defendant is charged with \u201ctwo or more transactions of the same class of crimes,\u201d which were consummated, according to a part of the evidence, in pursuance of a previous agreement between himself and those who committed the larceny; and under these circumstances we find no error in his Honor\u2019s ruling. C. S., 4622; S. v. Malpass, 189 N. C., 349; S. v. Jarrett, ibid., 516.\nThe other assignments present no sufficient cause for granting a new trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brum-mitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "McMichaei & McMichael avid William Graves for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HENRY CHARLES.\n(Filed 11 April, 1928.)\nReceiving Stolen Hoods \u2014 Indictment\u2014Evidence\u2014Same Class of Crime.\nAn indictment charging the defendant with \u201creceiving stolen goods,\u201d etc., with evidence tending to show the receiving on several occasions, does not require the solicitor to select the count on which he would proceed, on defendant\u2019s motion, each offense being of the same class of crime. O. S., 4622.\nAppeal by defendant from Deal, J., at January Term, 1928, of Foesyth.\nNo error.\nAttorney-General Brum-mitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nMcMichaei & McMichael avid William Graves for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0868-01",
  "first_page_order": 940,
  "last_page_order": 941
}