{
  "id": 8627861,
  "name": "STATE v. BERT LANCASTER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lancaster",
  "decision_date": "1936-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "584",
  "last_page": "585",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 584"
    }
  ],
  "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": "180 S. E., 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606505
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S. E., 806",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628137
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "54 S. E., 841",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "142 N. C., 569",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652510
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/142/0569-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 714",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698753
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0714-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 162,
    "char_count": 2295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.516,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7487386565700033e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8325568401864356
    },
    "sha256": "1479ea4545935c9061383cedb2c2ea00c4b721c762ed01e286454c7c4d5815cb",
    "simhash": "1:3367976c5b3a787d",
    "word_count": 401
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BERT LANCASTER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant\u2019s motions that each of the indictments be quashed, and that judgment on each of the convictions be arrested, on the ground that the indictments were fatally defective, for that it did not appear by an endorsement of the foreman of the grand jury that any person whose name appeared on the back of the bill of indictment as a witness for the State, bad been sworn and bad testified before the grand jury, were properly denied.\nThe absence of such endorsement was not sufficient to overcome the presumption of the validity of the indictment arising from its return by the grand jury as a \u201ctrue bill.\u201d S. v. Lanier, 90 N. C., 714. No evidence was offered by the defendant in support of his motion. S. v. Sultan, 142 N. C., 569, 54 S. E., 841. The provisions of C. S., 2336, with respect to the duty of the foreman of the grand jury, are directory, and not mandatory. S. v. Avant, 202 N. C., 680, 163 S. E., 806.\nDefendant\u2019s assignments of error based upon exceptions to the charge of the court to the jury cannot be sustained. There was no error in the charge. See S. v. Lancaster, 208 N. C., 349, 180 S. E., 577. The judgments are affirmed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.",
      "J. Faison Thomson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BERT LANCASTER.\n(Filed 14 October, 1936.)\nIndictment C c \u2014 Absence of endorsement on bill of indictment that witnesses for State had testified held insufficient ground for quashal.\nThe absence of an endorsement on the bill of indictment by the foreman of the grand jury that any witnesses for the State had been sworn and had testified before the grand jury is insufficient to overcome the presumption of validity arising from its being returned a \u201ctrue bill,\u201d and is insufficient ground for quashal, the provisions of C. S., 2336, being directory and not mandatory.\nAppeal by defendant from Williams, J., at April Term, 1936, of WayNe.\nNo error.\nThis is a criminal action in which the defendant was tried on four indictments, which were consolidated by order of the trial court for purposes of trial. C. S., 4622.\nThe defendant was convicted of the crime charged in each indictment, and appealed from the judgments on three of said convictions to the Supreme Court, assigning errors on the trial.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.\nJ. Faison Thomson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0584-01",
  "first_page_order": 650,
  "last_page_order": 651
}