{
  "id": 8627868,
  "name": "STATE v. MONROE LEE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lee",
  "decision_date": "1938-03-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "319",
  "last_page": "320",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 319"
    }
  ],
  "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": "192 N. C., 704",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626299
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0704-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 326",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626674
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0326-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 148,
    "char_count": 1746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.475,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.738807898971173e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4551232523595005
    },
    "sha256": "0cac0be1c953ec2002a461062ae7d547a1fe17531430e66ffa70dbc6a2beeff4",
    "simhash": "1:855110f07b19586d",
    "word_count": 296
  },
  "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. MONROE LEE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe principal question presented by tbis appeal is tbe correctness of tbe ruling of tbe court below in denying defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit. When tbis same case was bere on tbe defendant\u2019s appeal at Spring Term, 1937 (211 N. C., 326), a new trial was awarded for error in tbe admission of evidence. In tbat case it was said: \u201cWhile tbe evidence was entirely circumstantial, and included testimony as to tbe action of bloodhounds, admitted for tbe purpose of corroboration, we are unable to say that tbis did not constitute more than a scintilla of evidence, and so sufficient to take tbe case to tbe jury. S. v. Thompson, 192 N. C., 704.\u201d\nSubstantially tbe same testimony was presented by tbe State in tbis last trial, and again tbe jury has found tbe defendant guilty. Tbe motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly denied.\nTbe other exceptions noted at tbe trial and assigned as error cannot be sustained. We find no sufficient reason to disturb tbe result of tbe trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Willis for the State.",
      "J. R. Young and I. R. Williams for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MONROE LEE.\n(Filed 23 March, 1938.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 85\u2014\nWhere, on a former appeal, a new trial is awarded for error in the admission of evidence, but it is determined that the evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury, a motion to nonsuit upon the second trial upon substantially the same evidence is correctly denied.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Special Judge, at September Term, 1937, of Habnett. No error.\nDefendant was indicted for willfully and wantonly burning a barn, tbe property of Wilson Lucas. From judgment pronounced on verdict of guilty defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Willis for the State.\nJ. R. Young and I. R. Williams for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0319-01",
  "first_page_order": 383,
  "last_page_order": 384
}