{
  "id": 8627934,
  "name": "STATE v. ED MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1929-05-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "196",
  "last_page": "197",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 196"
    }
  ],
  "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": 147,
    "char_count": 1894,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.434,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0369578409670461e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5497689247519836
    },
    "sha256": "bcb7eb96671f89a87834dbcca8f6a8f2e44ad7e614348a59ff78addbf8df5f92",
    "simhash": "1:579e6f863364624d",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ED MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pees Cueiam:.\nDefendant\u2019s contention on bis appeal to tbis Court tbat be is entitled to a new trial for errors committed on tbe trial in tbe Superior Court cannot be sustained.\nThere was no error in excluding tbe list of witnesses endorsed on tbe bill of indictment as evidence. Defendant\u2019s purpose in offering tbis list as evidence, as stated by bis counsel, was to show tbat tbe grand jury did not examine all tbe persons whose names were endorsed on tbe bill of indictment as witnesses for tbe State, and tbat tbe solicitor bad not called all these persons as witnesses on tbe trial. We are unable to see bow any inference unfavorable to tbe State or favorable to tbe defendant could have been drawn from these facts by tbe jury. They were wholly irrelevant, and bad no probative value as evidence.\nThere was no error in tbe charge of tbe court to tbe jury. Taken in its entirety tbe charge was free from error and was in full compliance with tbe statute. C. S., 564. Tbe judgment is affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pees Cueiam:."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash, for the State.",
      "J. F. Flowers for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ED MOORE.\n(Filed 8 May, 1929.)\nCriminal X/aw G d \u2014 List of witnesses endorsed on bill of indictment not material evidence and its exclusion not error.\nThe defendant in a criminal action is not entitled to the introduction in evidence of the list of State\u2019s witnesses endorsed on the bill of indictment for the purpose of showing that all of them had not been examined by the grand jury nor called as witnesses at the trial.\nAppeal by defendant from Stack, J., at January Term, 1929, of MeckleNbubg.\nNo error.\nThis is a criminal action in wbicb defendant was convicted of murder in tbe second degree.\nFrom judgment tbat defendant be confined in tbe State\u2019s prison for a term of not less tban fifteen, nor more tban twenty years, defendant appealed to tbe Supreme Court. \u00b0\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash, for the State.\nJ. F. Flowers for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0196-01",
  "first_page_order": 260,
  "last_page_order": 261
}