{
  "id": 8627086,
  "name": "STATE v. HARRISON SHEW",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shew",
  "decision_date": "1928-12-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "386",
  "last_page": "387",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "196 N.C. 386"
    }
  ],
  "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": "187 N. C., 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653223
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/187/0022-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 157,
    "char_count": 1706,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.542650279455955e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4477666458546425
    },
    "sha256": "f5d8eaf77b373f0e034752c4401200d678bb14f947a273712bbc8733e42ef606",
    "simhash": "1:8ced450f94b567d2",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:28:30.620798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HARRISON SHEW."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CueiaM.\nDid bis Honor err in permitting Harvey Campbell, wbo was serving a term in tbe State\u2019s penitentiary for stealing automobiles to testify against tbe defendant, without charging tbe jury that tbe jury should scrutinize tbe testimony of said Campbell? We think not.\nDefendant asked no prayer on tbe subject, it is ordinarily not incumbent on tbe court to charge without a request. S. v. O\u2019Neal, 187 N. C., 22.\nIt is well settled in this jurisdiction that tbe uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice should be received with caution, yet there is no rule of law forbidding a conviction on bis evidence alone. S. v. Ashburn, 187 N. C., at p. 728.\nTbe testimony of W. W. Ashburn was positive as to tbe ownership of tbe stolen car \u2014 \u201cthat be knew that this car belonged to Miss Ora L. Beam.\u201d\nWe can find no error in tbe record.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CueiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant; Attorney-General Nash for the State. ' \u25a0",
      "J. Hubert Whicker and Trivette & Corner for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HARRISON SHEW.\n(Filed 12 December, 1928.)\nCriminal Daw \u2014 Evidence\u2014Testimony of Convicts, Accomplices or Co-defendants \u2014 Requests for Instructions.\nWhile it is a rule of law that the evidence of a witness who is con- ' fined upon the roads for a criminal offense should be received with certain caution, the failure of the judge to so charge the- jury will, not be held for error in the absence of a request for instructions by the appellant to that effect.\nAppeal by defendant from Bchenck, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1928, of Wilkes.\nNo error.\nDefendant was convicted for receiving a stolen Ford touring car knowing it to have been stolen. From .the judgment he appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant; Attorney-General Nash for the State. ' \u25a0\nJ. Hubert Whicker and Trivette & Corner for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0386-01",
  "first_page_order": 466,
  "last_page_order": 467
}