{
  "id": 8628306,
  "name": "STATE v. G. W. BATTS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Batts",
  "decision_date": "1936-11-04",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "659",
  "last_page": "660",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 N.C. 659"
    }
  ],
  "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": "207 N. C., 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625337
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0273-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N. C., 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273834
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/178/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C., 695",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654987
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0695-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221475
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0083-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 197,
    "char_count": 2832,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.477,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0036319840461174e-07,
      "percentile": 0.539610996625672
    },
    "sha256": "07aca5ab753a64560ec631adfb0da776066081d0133c9d56410f3f746af7c023",
    "simhash": "1:bc8285247d4fa069",
    "word_count": 477
  },
  "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. G. W. BATTS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThere was evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury that the defendant was guilty under the count in the bill of indictment on which he was convicted, and the charge of the court below was free from error.\nBut the defendant contends that in the course of the trial incompetent testimony was admitted, over his objection, warranting a new trial.\nDefendant assigns as error the admission of testimony of a State\u2019s witness that he had seen the defendant deliberately damage another automobile of his on another occasion than that alleged in the bill of indictment, and that defendant made claim therefor, but this exception cannot be sustained on this record. The defendant was indicted for conspiracy to cheat and defraud. One of the elements of the offense with which the defendant was charged was the intent. In such case it is well established that evidence of other like offenses is competent. S. v. Hardy, 209 N. C., 83; S. v. Miller, 189 N. C., 695; S. v. Simons, 178 N. C., 679.\nThe exceptions to the court\u2019s charge to the jury relate to statements of the contentions of the State, as to which the judge\u2019s attention was not called at the time. S. v. Johnson, 207 N. C., 273. The contention that the charge contains expressions of opinion in violation of C. S., 564, cannot be sustained.\nThe other exceptions noted at the trial are without material significance.\nOn the record before us, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.",
      "Sutton & Greene and John G. Dawson for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. G. W. BATTS.\n(Filed 4 November, 1936.)\n1. Criminal Baw G m \u2014 Evidence of defendant\u2019s commission of other like offenses held competent when intent is essential element of offense charged.\nIn this prosecution defendant was charged with conspiring with others to damage his car with intent to defraud the insurance company. A witness was permitted to testify that on a former occasion he had seen defendant willfully damage another automobile belonging to him and that defendant had made claim for such damage. Held,: Testimony of defendant\u2019s commission of a like offense on a prior occasion was competent on the question of intent constituting an essential element of the offense charged.\n3. Criminal Law I g\u2014\nAn exception by defendant to the court\u2019s statement of the contentions of the State will not be sustained when defendant fails to call the matter to the court\u2019s attention in apt time.\nAppeal by defendant from Grady, J., at June Term, 1936, of LeNoie.\nNo error.\nThe defendant was convicted on one count in the bill of indictment charging bim and others with criminal conspiracy to wreck and damage an automobile, the property of defendant, with intent to defraud the insurance company.\nFrom judgment pronounced on a verdict of guilty, defendant Batts appealed.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.\nSutton & Greene and John G. Dawson for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0659-01",
  "first_page_order": 725,
  "last_page_order": 726
}