{ "id": 8627180, "name": "STATE v. DUDLEY MOORE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore", "decision_date": "1931-11-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "618", "last_page": "619", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "201 N.C. 618" } ], "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": "137 S. E., 175", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 428", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217692 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0428-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 S. E., 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 N. C., 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651349 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0354-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 236, "char_count": 3920, "ocr_confidence": 0.452, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.27879270835649e-07, "percentile": 0.6169772832315706 }, "sha256": "e1aa41e3ade78db166842eade1051d97d2bf492155859e3345124e58146edcc5", "simhash": "1:9c6d76ec47b8b949", "word_count": 670 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. DUDLEY MOORE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nAt the August Term, 1931, Davidson Superior Court, the defendant herein, Dudley Moore, was tried upon an indictment charging him with the murder of Mrs. Jacob G. Berrier, which resulted in a conviction and sentence of death. The prisoner gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, and was allowed 30 days within which to make out and serve his statement of case on appeal, which was not done, although in forma pauperis was authorized.\nThe time for serving case on appeal expired 28 September, 1931, and as nothing had been done by the prisoner towards perfecting his appeal, the clerk of the Superior Court on 29 September certified the facts to the Attorney-General pursuant to C. S., 4654.\nThereafter, the prisoner employed counsel, other than those assigned by the trial court to defend him, and an ex parte \u201cstatement of case on appeal\u201d was filed in this Court, with request that the same be considered by the Court, notwithstanding patent irregularities and defects appearing on the face of it.\nAfter suggestion by the Attorney-General to counsel for the prisoner that this ex parte statement had never been served on the solicitor or settled in any way as the case on appeal, the entire \u201crecord in the case\u201d was certified up by the clerk of the Superior Court. This seems to be the stenographer\u2019s notes reduced to narrative form, and while the clerk\u2019s certificate recites that it is the \u201crecord in the case as agreed to by the solicitor for the State and the attorney for the defendant,\u201d it nowhere purports to be signed by the solicitor or counsel for the defendant, and it contains no assignments of error.\nFourteen exceptions were apparently noted throughout the trial, the last being: \u201cThe defendant assigns as error the judge\u2019s charge.\u201d It was said in McKinnon v. Morrison, 104 N. C., 354, 10 S. E., 513, that a broadside exception \u201cto the charge as given\u201d would not be considered. Unpointed exceptions to the charge are unavailing on appeal. Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., 428, 137 S. E., 175.\nNotwithstanding the patent insufficiency of these papers to constitute a proper statement of the case on appeal, we have examined both the prisoner\u2019s ex parte statement and the \u201crecord of the case,\u201d and find no error appearing on either, or on the face of the record proper. S. v. Goldston, ante, 89.\nJudgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, O. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Brummitt ancl Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the Slate.", "Hosie V. Price and P. A. Escoffery for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. DUDLEY MOORE.\n(Filed 10 November, 1931.)\n1. Criminal Law L a \u2014 Appeal in capital case not prosecuted according to rules will be dismissed, no error appearing on record.\nWhere an appeal in a capital case in forma pauperis is not prosecuted according to the Rules o\u00ed Court, and after the expiration of time for filing the statement of case on appeal, an ex parte statement is filed, and later, upon suggestion of the Attorney-General, the record of the case as agreed to by the solicitor and counsel for defendant is certified up by the clerk of the Superior Court, but is not signed by either and contains no assignments of error, the Supreme Court, not withstanding the insufficiency of the papers to constitute a proper statement of the case, will examine the ex parte statement and the \u201crecord of the case,\u201d and upon no error appearing upon either or on the face of the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed and the appeal dismissed.\n2. Appeal and Error P b \u2014 A broadside exception to the charge will not be considered.\nAn unpointed or broadside exception to the charge of the trial court will not be considered on appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Warlich, J., at August Term, 1931, of Davids ON.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the prisoner with the murder of one Mrs. Jacob G-. Berrier.\nYerdict: Guilty of murder in the first degree.\nJudgment: Death by electrocution.\nThe prisoner appeals.\nAttorney-General Brummitt ancl Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the Slate.\nHosie V. Price and P. A. Escoffery for defendant." }, "file_name": "0618-01", "first_page_order": 692, "last_page_order": 693 }