{
  "id": 8627618,
  "name": "STATE v. BEATRICE SIMMERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Simmerson",
  "decision_date": "1932-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "583",
  "last_page": "584",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 N.C. 583"
    }
  ],
  "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": "156 S. E., 126",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N. C., 725",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652288
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/111/0725-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696602
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 S. E., 181",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "168 N. C., 131",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657845
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/168/0131-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 191,
    "char_count": 2498,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.47,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20728389956325638
    },
    "sha256": "93cbbba7b35ec927824708fb13fa80d206c571ae7e8547a9365033d77cdbd5b6",
    "simhash": "1:2c251412664424f8",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.445618+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BEATRICE SIMMERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CONNOR, J.\nA certified copy of tbe record proper in tbis action bas not been filed in tbis Court, as required by its rules. Rule 19. Tbe transcript contains only a statement of tbe case on appeal prepared by counsel for the defendant, and accepted by tbe solicitor for tbe State. No indictment appears therein; nor does it appear tbat tbe defendant was tried and convicted on a warrant issued by an inferior court, and tbat sbe appealed from tbe judgment of sueb court to tbe Superior Court. There is nothing in tbe transcript which shows tbat tbe Superior Court of Forsyth County bad jurisdiction of tbe action.\nIn S. v. McDraughon, 168 N. C., 131, 83 S. E., 181, it is said: \u201cTbe presumption is tbat tbe judgment of tbe Superior Court is correct, and tbe burden is on tbe appellant to show error. As far back as S. v. Butts, 91 N. C., 524, tbe requisites of tbe transcript were pointed out, and in S. v. Frizell, 111 N. C., 725, tbe Court said: 'An appellant does not do bis duty by simply taking an appeal and leaving it to tbe clerk to send up what be may deem necessary. It is tbe appellant\u2019s duty to see tbat tbe record is properly and sufficiently made up and transmitted.\u2019 \u201d\nThere is no motion for certiorari in tbis appeal, and in tbe exercise of our discretion, we do not order tbat such writ issue in tbis case. The appeal is dismissed. Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788, 156 S. E., 126.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CONNOR, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummiit and Assistant Attorney-G-eneral Seawell for the State.",
      "Wallace & Wall for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BEATRICE SIMMERSON.\n(Filed 13 April, 1932.)\nCriminal Raw R d \u2014 Appeal in this case is dismissed for insufficiency of the record.\nWhere a certified copy of the record proper has not been filed on appeal in 'a criminal action, the transcript containing only a statement of case on appeal accepted by the solicitor, which fails to contain the indictment or to show that the trial court had jurisdiction, the appeal will be dismissed, Rule 19, no motion for certiorari having been made and the Supreme Court not ordering the writ to issue in its discretion.\nAppeal by defendant from Harwood, Special Judge, at December Term, 1931, of Foesyth.\nAppeal dismissed.\nThe defendant was tried and convicted in the Superior Court of For-syth County of having -intoxicating liquor in her possession, in violation of the statute. N. C. Code of 1931, section 3411(b). \u2022\nFrom the judgment on such conviction, defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors in the trial.\nAttorney-General Brummiit and Assistant Attorney-G-eneral Seawell for the State.\nWallace & Wall for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0583-01",
  "first_page_order": 649,
  "last_page_order": 650
}