{
  "id": 8610516,
  "name": "STATE v. ALBERT HARVELL, ROOSEVELT GRAY and EVA LAMBERT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harvell",
  "decision_date": "1933-01-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "32",
  "last_page": "33",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 32"
    }
  ],
  "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": "106 S. E., 669",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N. C., 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657421
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/181/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N. C., 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627781
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0724-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 277,
    "char_count": 3679,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.352118900350178e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4413527584040614
    },
    "sha256": "5cf56118175edb4523f60974fe4f740d61563dc634a674748230ebd4dc329db6",
    "simhash": "1:d4c6a16cf6779dd9",
    "word_count": 627
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:28.108315+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ALBERT HARVELL, ROOSEVELT GRAY and EVA LAMBERT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.,\nafter stating the case: The demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. S. v. Dills, post, 33; S. v. Durham, 201 N. C., 724, 161 S. E., 398; S. v. Rountree, 181 N. C., 535, 106 S. E., 669.\n'While the instruction which forms the basis of the appealing defendant\u2019s principal exception, may be slightly inexact, tested by the rule in S. v. Cope, ante, 28, nevertheless it would seem to- be harmless on the present record, as there is no evidence of a simple, unintentional or inadvertent violation of the traffic laws. The conduct of the defendants was reckless and their negligence culpable according to the evidence and the verdict. S. v. Cope, supra.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Aiiorney-Generad Brummilt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "Hartsell & Hartsell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ALBERT HARVELL, ROOSEVELT GRAY and EVA LAMBERT.\n(Filed 25 January, 1933.)\n1. Homicide C a \u2014 Evidence of culpable negligence in driving automobile held sufficient.\nEvidence tending to show that all of the defendants were drunk and riding in the front seat of a car driven by one of them in a manner contrary to statute, and that the appealing defendant, being mad because not permitted to drive, grabbed the steering wheel, causing the car to run into a filling station in a reckless manner, resulting in the death of the deceased, is held sufficient to overrule a demurrer to the evidence in a prosecution for felonious slaying.\n2. Same \u2014 Instruction in this case relating to culpable negligence held not to contain reversible error.\nIn this prosecution for a felonious slaying resulting from the negligent operation of an automobile, the instruction relating to culpable negligence, though inexact, is held not to contain reversible error, there being no evidence that the violation of the traffic regulation was unintentional or inadvertent.\nAppeal by Roosevelt Gray from Finley, Jat August Term, 1932, of Cabakeus.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant, and others, with the felonious slaying of one Stamey Holdbrooks.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show that on 11 July, 1932, the three defendants, Eva Lambert, Albert Harvell and Roosevelt Gray, were in the front seat of a Nash roadster, with Willie Shoe and Cora Lambert in the rumble seat, all drinking, and driving around at the rate of \u201c35 or 40 miles an hour, if not more.\u201d The car swung back and forth from one side of the road to the other. Eva Lambert, who was driving, testified that the defendant Gray \u201csaid he was going to wreck me and he tried to jerk me into a post and then into the filling station. He was mad because they would not let him drive; he grabbed the steering wheel and jerked it, heading for the telephone post. I got it straightened back into the road; he jerked it into the filling station.\u201d This was denied by the defendant Gray.\nThey ran into Holdbrooks\u2019 Filling Station \u201cjust like a storm\u201d; tore down the gas tank; \u201cknocked the post clean out of the ground; hit the deceased and knocked him over to the side of the filling station.\u201d\nBesides the motion to nonsuit, the exception to the following instruction constitutes the defendant\u2019s principal assignment of error r\n\u201cNegligence must be something more than is required in the trial of an issue in a civil action, in that it must be such negligence that a man of ordinary prudence would avoid under similar circumstances, but it is sufficient to be submitted to a jury in a criminal prosecution if it is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.\u201d\nFrom an adverse verdict and judgment of not less than 4 nor more than 6 years in the State\u2019s prison, the defendant, Eoosevelt Gray, appeals, assigning errors.\nAiiorney-Generad Brummilt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nHartsell & Hartsell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0032-01",
  "first_page_order": 98,
  "last_page_order": 99
}