{
  "id": 8626130,
  "name": "STATE v. J. H. GULLEDGE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gulledge",
  "decision_date": "1934-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "374",
  "last_page": "375",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 374"
    }
  ],
  "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": "206 N. C., 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632200
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0644-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 S. E., 152",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 N. C., 832",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651597
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/114/0832-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 S. E., 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 N. C., 1046",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656101
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/116/1046-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 S. E., 10",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 N. C., 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651650
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/108/0755-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11276980
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 807",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698793
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0807-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L.R.A.N.S.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S. E., 154",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 N. C., 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658587
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/143/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 S. E., 771",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8651990
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 S. E., 200",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653686
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 S. E., 231",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N. C., 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274325
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/110/0597-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2572,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.459,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0174910649472315e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3161280831430713
    },
    "sha256": "09f123a7adfebf33cdba5e9ff9e9d7037b01568252c523eb87781109cdae0e9f",
    "simhash": "1:527252290db8bfc1",
    "word_count": 474
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. H. GULLEDGE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nTbe special verdict is fatally defective in tbat it fails to find tbe facts essential to an adjudication of tbe defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence. S. v. Yount, 110 N. C., 597, 15 S. E., 231; S. v. Finlayson, 113 N. C., 628, 18 S. E., 200; S. v. Colonial Club, 154 N. C., 177, 69 S. E., 771; S. v. Hanner, 143 N. C., 632, 57 S. E., 154, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1. Hence, a venire de novo must be ordered. S. v. Blue, 84 N. C., 807. Tbe case stands as if there bad been a mistrial. S. v. Curtis, 71 N. C., 56.\nRut defective as it is, tbe verdict is such as to warrant an appeal by tbe State. C. S., 4649; S. v. Ewing, 108 N. C., 755, 13 S. E., 10; S. v. Robinson, 116 N. C., 1046, 21 S. E., 701; S. v. Gillikin, 114 N. C., 832, 19 S. E., 152.\nVenire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorneys-General Seawell, Bridges, and Orr for the State.",
      "J. L. DeLaney for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. H. GULLEDGE.\n(Filed 21 November, 1934.)\n1. Criminal Law I ic\u2014\nA special verdict that fails to find facts essential to an adjudication of defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence is fatally defective and a venire de novo will be ordered on appeal.\n2. Criminal Law L e\u2014\nThe State may appeal from acquittal of defendant upon a special verdict, although the verdict is fatally defective in that it fails to find facts essential to an adjudication of defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence. C. S., 4649.\nAppeal by the State from Sink, J., at August Term, 1934, of Mecik-LENBURG.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon warrant charging the defendant with feloniously failing (1) \u201cto comply with city ordinance by cruising from place to place in a taxicab and picking up jrassengers\u201d; and (2) \u201calso failing to have insurance covering taxicab No. 1 of the Safety Cab Company.\u201d\nJudgment of guilty and fine on both counts in the Recorder\u2019s Court, from which the defendant appealed, and was tried de novo in Superior Court.\nUpon motion, the solicitor was allowed to amend \u201cso as to set out the ordinances referred to in the warrant.\u201d\nThe following special verdict was returned in the case:\n\u201cThe jury finds that the defendant committed the acts prohibited by the ordinances, as set out in the amendment to the warrant, upon the date stated in the warrant. If upon said facts the defendant is guilty, the jury then finds him guilty. If upon said facts he is not guilty, the jury finds him not guilty.\u201d\nTbe court being of opinion tbat tbe ordinances are void under authority of 8. v. Sasseen, 206 N. C., 644, adjudged tbe defendant not guilty upon tbe special verdict. Tbe State appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorneys-General Seawell, Bridges, and Orr for the State.\nJ. L. DeLaney for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0374-01",
  "first_page_order": 442,
  "last_page_order": 443
}