{
  "id": 8610212,
  "name": "STATE v. J. MACK RHODES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rhodes",
  "decision_date": "1982-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "329",
  "last_page": "330",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 329"
    }
  ],
  "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": "161 S. E., 722",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2156,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.437,
    "sha256": "055391a3ed2635aa425b7795ea3327af2277e130d0c3fd5e15f72d95ae18d67a",
    "simhash": "1:bc20047ed08f316d",
    "word_count": 363
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. MACK RHODES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe showing made upon the allegations of the petition, of which Judge Clement could take cognizance or had authority to hear, was not sucb as to call for a favorable exercise of the court\u2019s jurisdiction or to invoke its aid in behalf of the defendant. The petition was properly denied.\nThe motion to docket and dismiss or dismiss the appeal will be allowed on authority of S. v. Lea, ante, 316.\nMotion allowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "Shipman & Arledge and B. L. Whitmire for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. MACK RHODES.\n(Filed 19 October, 1982.)\nCriminal Daw J d \u2014 Held: defendant failed to show sufficient grounds for granting of motion for a new trial after affirmance of judgment.\nIn this case: Held,, the defendant failed as to those matters within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court, to make a sufficient showing on his motion for a new trial at the next succeeding term after affirmance of the judgment by the Supreme Court, and his appeal from the order of the Superior Court denying his motion is dismissed.\nMotioN by State to docket and dismiss or dismiss appeal, the transcript of the case having been sent up and docketed 4 October, 1932, at the instance of the solicitor of the district as was his right. S. v. Ship-man, ante, 325'.\nAt the March Term, 1931, Henderson Superior Court, the defendant in the above entitled cause was tried upon an indictment, charging him with violations of the banking laws, which resulted in convictions and sentences. From these, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court. The judgments were affirmed in an opinion filed 8 January, 1932, reported in 202 N. O., 101, 161 S. E., 722.\nAt the next succeeding term of Henderson Superior Court following affirmance of the judgments on appeal, the defendant made application to Hon. John H. Clement, judge presiding, for a new trial on the grounds of (1) alleged disqualification of jurors, (2) newly discovered \u2022evidence, and (3) errors committed on the hearing.\nAfter hearing the application, his Honor denied the same in his discretion, from which ruling the defendant again gave notice of appeal.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nShipman & Arledge and B. L. Whitmire for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0329-01",
  "first_page_order": 397,
  "last_page_order": 398
}