{
  "id": 8621289,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM MITCHELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mitchell",
  "decision_date": "1930-06-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "807",
  "last_page": "807",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 N.C. 807"
    }
  ],
  "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": 150,
    "char_count": 2170,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.44,
    "sha256": "729015d690dda391fecc32d45a09a7c54c255c47cc6331ad78843e11790bdafa",
    "simhash": "1:8521ef8051e53c4f",
    "word_count": 364
  },
  "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. WILLIAM MITCHELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CubiaM.\nThere was no error on the trial of this action for which the defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nThe only assignments of error on his appeal to this Court are based on his exceptions to the exclusion of testimony sought to be elicited on the cross-examination of witnesses for the State who had testified that the general character of another witness for the State was good, and that the deceased did not have a general reputation as a dangerous man. This testimony was offered as evidence tending to impeach these witnesses, and not as evidence upon the issue to be determined by the jury. If it be conceded that the testimony was admissible for the restricted purpose for which it was offered, we cannot hold that its exclusion was reversible error.\nThe conflicting evidence tending to sustain the verdict, and also in support of defendant\u2019s plea of self-defense, was submitted to the jury under a charge to which there were no exceptions. The judgment must be affirmed. We find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CubiaM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brwmmitt and. Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Avery & Patton, S. J. Ervin and S. J. Enin, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM MITCHELL.\n(Filed 6 June, 1930.)\nCriminal Law L e \u2014 Error, if any, in excluding testimony intended to impeach State\u2019s character witnesses held not reversible error.\nIn this case held,: defendant\u2019s exception to the exclusion of testimony sought to be elicited on cross-examination from certain of the State\u2019s witnesses who had testified to the good character of another State witness and to the character of the deceased, offered as tending to impeach such character witnesses, if it be conceded that the testimony was competent for this restricted purpose, its exclusion cannot be held for reversible error.\nAppeal by tbe defendant from Stack, J., at March Term, 1930, of Eukke. No error.\nThis is a criminal action in which the defendant was tried on an indictment for murder, and convicted of manslaughter.\nFrom judgment on the verdict, that defendant be confined in the State\u2019s prison at hard labor for a term of not less than twelve nor more than eighteen years, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.\nAttorney-General Brwmmitt and. Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nAvery & Patton, S. J. Ervin and S. J. Enin, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0807-01",
  "first_page_order": 877,
  "last_page_order": 877
}