{
  "id": 8627351,
  "name": "STATE v. J. C. CRADLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cradle",
  "decision_date": "1938-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "217",
  "last_page": "218",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 217"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 140,
    "char_count": 1815,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36695440544989305
    },
    "sha256": "fed715030714b61120797e3d72ac557c639ddd00be36117ff4060d1237e61445",
    "simhash": "1:3436a5ae9a0ab442",
    "word_count": 309
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. J. C. CRADLE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe defendant was convicted of having in bis possession liquor upon wbicb tbe tax bad not been paid, and from judgment of imprisonment appealed, assigning as error tbe denial by tbe court of bis motion to suppress evidence of certain facts discovered by reason of tbe issuance of a search warrant.\nTbe affidavit, upon wbicb tbe search warrant was issued, was made by P. W. Brown, chief of police, wbo was tbe \u201ccomplainant,\u201d or if not the complainant be was at least some \u201cother person\u201d and met the requirement of the statute, Public Laws 1937, ch. 339, sec. 1%, upon which the appellant relies, and therefore the facts discovered by reason of the search warrant were not rendered incompetent. There is nothing in the statute that requires the complainant or other person who makes the affidavit to state therein who his informant is, or which requires the informant to make the affidavit, as seems to be the contention of the appellant.\nIn the trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.",
      "P. H. Bell for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. J. C. CRADLE.\n(Filed 2 March, 1938.)\nConstitutional Law \u00a7 14: Criminal Law \u00a7 43 \u2014 Affidavit for search warrant signed by chief of police meets requirements of the statute.\nAn affidavit for a search warrant signed by the chief of police is sufficient compliance with ch. 339, sec. 1%, Public Laws of 1931, since if the chief of police is not the informant he is \u201csome other person,\u201d and the statute does not require that the informant should make the affidavit, or that the person signing the affidavit should state therein who his informant is, and evidence obtained on a search warrant issued on such affidavit is competent.\nAppeal by defendant from Bone, J., at January Term, 1938, of WASHINGTON. No error.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.\nP. H. Bell for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0217-01",
  "first_page_order": 281,
  "last_page_order": 282
}