{
  "id": 8617522,
  "name": "STATE v. HENRY SETZER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Setzer",
  "decision_date": "1930-05-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "663",
  "last_page": "664",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 663"
    }
  ],
  "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": "148 S. E., 547",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628933
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0352-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 S. E., 305",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 N. C., 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271016
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/161/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "131 S. E., 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 210",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628333
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0210-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S. E., 729",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 302",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217739
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0302-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2089,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.605085434253971e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4037239236727701
    },
    "sha256": "62e1230b6da2d0f38735a625716a7936f9d3f72985853b9a23b0ec97635791a9",
    "simhash": "1:7297cb9e33999909",
    "word_count": 373
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:28.956258+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HENRY SETZER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nThe sheriff was permitted to testify, over objection of defendant, that one John Burns who had been arrested as a suspect, prior to the defendant, and charged with entering the store and stealing the goods in question, said to him while in his custody: \u201cIf you will get Henry Setzer you will be on the right track.\u201d This evidence was incompetent as against the defendant, who was not present at the time the statement was made, and should have been excluded. S. v. Simmons, ante, 599; S. v. Green, 193 N. C., 302, 136 S. E., 729.\nThe declaration of a third person, not an agent of the party sought to be affected, made in the absence of such party, is inadmissible as hearsay. S. v. Lassiter, 191 N. C., 210, 131 S. E., 577; Daniel v. Dixon, 161 N. C., 377, 77 S. E., 305.\nThe error is just one of those mishaps which, now and then, befalls the most circumspect in the trial of causes on the circuit. S. v. Griggs, 197 N. C., 352, 148 S. E., 547. But the defendant has appealed, and he is entitled to a ruling on the exception.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "JR. L. Huffman for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HENRY SETZER.\n(Filed 7 May, 1930.)\nCriminal Haw G e \u2014 Testimony in this case should have been excluded under hearsay rule.\nTestimony of the sheriff that a suspect of the crime told him to get the present defendant and \u201cyou will be on the right track,\u201d not made in the presence of the defendant, is inadmissible as hearsay evidence, and its admission over the objection of the defendant is reversible error.\nAppeal by defendant from Stacie, J., at February Term, 1930, of Catawba.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant, and another, with breaking and entering the storehouse of one D. P. Drum on 28 November, 1929, with intent to steal the goods and chattels of the owner then being in said storehouse, etc., contrary to C. S., 4235.\nYerdict: Guilty.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s prison for a term of not less than 18, nor more than 30, months.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nJR. L. Huffman for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0663-01",
  "first_page_order": 733,
  "last_page_order": 734
}