{
  "id": 8616958,
  "name": "STATE v. ANDREW CARTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Carter",
  "decision_date": "1933-03-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "304",
  "last_page": "305",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 N.C. 304"
    }
  ],
  "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": "152 S. E., 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 545",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614291
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0545-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 N. C., 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277347
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N. C., 660",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 S. E., 284",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 N. C., 701",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652036
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/106/0701-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 S. E., 329",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "107 N. C., 798",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275036
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/107/0798-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 S. E., 1038",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N. C., 647",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651974
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/111/0647-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S. E., 330",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 N. C., 788",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/182/0788-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S. E., 285",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N. C., 20",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627536
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0020-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S. E., 555",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 100",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624559
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0100-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 S. E., 927",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "case_ids": [
        2013895
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sc/155/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609507
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0379-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S. E., 730",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 429",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8603127
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0429-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S. E., 874",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628209
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0692-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S. E., 22",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611173
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0442-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 4606,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0578403353091498e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7561452424446368
    },
    "sha256": "b04a2815729be2fadf624054ee3d1d03aa8c06832e1e2d577ad044da7df46eb2",
    "simhash": "1:b443b38e0a3ab799",
    "word_count": 838
  },
  "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. ANDREW CARTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe evidence does no more than raise a suspicion, somewhat strong perhaps, of a homicide and the defendant\u2019s guilt. This is not enough on a prosecution for murder. S. v. Everett, 194 N. C., 442, 140 S. E., 22. The demurrer to the evidence will be sustained, and judgment of nonsuit entered here, C. S., 4643, on authority of the following-cases: S. v. Church, 202 N. C., 692, 163 S. E., 874; S. v. Johnson, 199 N. C., 429, 154 S. E., 730; S. v. Battle, 198 N. C., 379, 151 S. E., 927; S. v. Swinson, 196 N. C., 100, 144 S. E., 555; S. v. Montague, 195 N. C., 20, 141 S. E., 285; S. v. Prince, 182 N. C., 788, 108 S. E., 330; S. v. Rhodes, 111 N. C., 647, 15 S. E., 1038; S. v. Goodson, 107 N. C., 798, 12 S. E., 329; S. v. Brackville, 106 N. C., 701, 11 S. E., 284; S. v. Massey, 86 N. C., 660; S. v. Vinson, 63 N. C., 335.\nThe failure of the defendant to view his wife\u2019s body at the undertaker\u2019s establishment was no stronger circumstance than the failure of the defendant in S. v. Birkman, 198 N. C., 545, 152 S. E., 630, to provide suitable burial clothes and a casket for his wife\u2019s funeral.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawall for the State.",
      "J. A. Pritchett and J. II. Matthews for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ANDREW CARTER.\n(Filed 8 March, 1933.)\nHomicide G a \u2014 Evidence in this prosecution for homicide is held insufficient to resist defendant\u2019s motion as of nonsuit.\nEvidence tending to show that deceased was in an advanced stage of pregnancy and was found dead lying on her bed where she had evidently been placed, it being impossible that she could have died in such position, that she was purging some at the nose and mouth and a small quantity of bloody fluid was oozing from her vagina, but that she was not in labor when she died, with medical opinion testimony that she died from a blow on the stomach, but that no bruises were found inside her body upon an autopsy, that the defendant, the deceased\u2019s husband, had been indicted for assaulting the deceased on previous occasions, but that he did not return home on the night of her death until eleven o\u2019clock, when according to his testimony, he found the door latched and went to his father\u2019s house for the night and did not see his wife until the next morning when he found her dead, and that defendant did not view his wife\u2019s body after it had been removed to the undertaker\u2019s establishment is held insufficient to be submitted to the jury, and a nonsuit is entered by the Supreme Court on appeal. C. S., 4643.\nAppeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., at August Term, 1932, of Beetie.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with the murder of his wife, Lottie Carter.\nThe record discloses:\n1. That Lottie Carter died at her home sometime during the night of 9 August, 1932. ITer body was found the next morning about Y :30 o\u2019clock, four to six hours after death. She was lying on the bed, partially covered with a sheet. Her infant child was playing on the bed beside her. She was in an advanced stage of pregnancy \u2014 within about a week of confinement. There was blood under the pillow and on the bed. The deceased was purging some at the mouth and nose, and a small quantity of bloody fluid was oozing from her vagina. She was not in labor, and her body had apparently been placed on the bed. She could not have died, quietly and without moving, in the position she was in. On the afternoon before, the deceased bad run some hogs out of the field, and had been warned by her father-in-law against such violent exercise.\n2. The coroner, who is a physician, testified that in his opinion, a blow on the stomach, above the navel, caused the death of the deceased. On cross-examination, he testified that an autopsy was performed and \u201cno bruises found inside the body.\u201d This was after the body had been embalmed.\n3. The defendant had, on two previous occasions, been indicted for assaulting his wife. He was away from home on the night in question. Returning around 11:00 o\u2019clock and finding the door fastened with the button on the inside, according to his testimony, he went to his father\u2019s house, about 400 yards away, and spent the night. The next morning, he pushed the door open, and upon seeing his wife, jumped back and exclaimed: \u201cLord, she is dead.\u201d\n4. The defendant did not view his wife\u2019s body after it had been removed to the undertaker\u2019s establishment.\nYerdict: Guilty of murder in the second degree.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison at hard labor for a term of-not less than eight nor more than ten years.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawall for the State.\nJ. A. Pritchett and J. II. Matthews for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0304-01",
  "first_page_order": 370,
  "last_page_order": 371
}