{
  "id": 8617122,
  "name": "STATE v. CLAY SHEPHERD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shepherd",
  "decision_date": "1932-12-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "646",
  "last_page": "647",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 646"
    }
  ],
  "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": "139 S. E., 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S. E., 581",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 752",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658021
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0752-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S. E., 846",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1975,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.35671191640902616
    },
    "sha256": "ce961a913a15c8551d6086ecf888101a49afb99ab9e3869f1c154e012924a724",
    "simhash": "1:eda7713cf83a1cad",
    "word_count": 333
  },
  "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. CLAY SHEPHERD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIt is conceded by tbe Attorney-General that error was committed in directing a verdict on conflicting or equivocal evidence. S. v. Singleton, 183 N. C., 738, 110 S. E., 846; S. v. Estes, 185 N. C., 752, 117 S. E., 581. Belief in the defendant\u2019s guilt is not enough. This must be established beyond a reasonable doubt. S. v. Boswell, 194 N. C., 260, 139 S. E., 374.\nThe defendant also excepts to the form of the judgment, but as a new trial must be awarded for error in the charge, which necessarily vacates the judgment, consideration of this exception is omitted.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummilt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "A. H. Casey for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CLAY SHEPHERD.\n(Filed 7 December, 1932.)\n1. Criminal Law I j \u2014 Directed verdict on conflicting evidence is error.\nWhere in a criminal prosecution the evidence is conflicting or equivocal a charge directing a verdict against the defendant is error.\n2. Criminal Law L e.\nWhere a new trial is granted on appeal for error in the charge an exception to the form of the judgment need not be considered.\nAppeal by defendant from Moore, J., at March Term, 1932, of WlLKES.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with forcible trespass.\nThe prosecuting witness and the father of the defendant are adjoining-landowners, the true dividing line between the properties being in dispute. The prosecuting witness set a number of posts preparatory to erecting- a fence along the dividing line. These were removed by the defendant, at the instance of his father, under a claim of right \u2014 both parties claiming to be in the rightful possession of the property where the posts were erected.\nThe court charged the jury that if they believed the evidence to return a verdict of guilty. Exception.\nVerdict: Guilty.\nJudgment: \u201cThat defendant pay a fine of $25.00 and costs, and pay R. F. Brown $5.00 for damage to the fence.\u201d\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummilt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nA. H. Casey for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0646-01",
  "first_page_order": 714,
  "last_page_order": 715
}