{
  "id": 8628515,
  "name": "STATE v. WADDELL HADLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hadley",
  "decision_date": "1938-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "427",
  "last_page": "427",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 427"
    }
  ],
  "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": "186 S. E., 368",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626053
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S. E., 23",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 706",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628334
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0706-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 701",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614274
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0536-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S. E., 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221541
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S. E., 75",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 648",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627867
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0648-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2067,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.253395934442718e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6107780801120065
    },
    "sha256": "9e16528842ab5279375fa70e356dbf8d9ea77da4648470c3083fde815bf02fbe",
    "simhash": "1:1109d3a256026e51",
    "word_count": 373
  },
  "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. WADDELL HADLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with the crime of rape. There was. verdict of guilty of rape as charged in the bill, and judgment of death by asphyxiation. Defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was permitted to appeal in forma pauperis. The record and case on appeal were duly docketed in this Court, but defendant has filed no brief, which works an abandonment of the assignments of error (S. v. Hooker, 207 N. C., 648, 178 S. E., 75; S. v. Dingle, 209 N. C., 293, 183 S. E., 376; S. v. Robinson, 212 N. C., 536, 193 S. E., 701), except those appearing on the face of the record, which are cognizable ex mero motu. S. v. Edney, 202 N. C., 706, 164 S. E., 23.\nThe Attorney-General moves to dismiss the appeal for failure to comply with Rule 28 of this Court as to filing briefs. This motion is allowed. S. v. Kinyon, 210 N. C., 294, 186 S. E., 368; S. v. Robinson, supra.\nHowever, as is customary in capital cases, we have examined the record and case on appeal to see if any error appears. The only exceptions presented are without merit. The case on appeal reveals evidence competent and' sufficient to sustain the verdict. The charge of the court below fully and fairly presented the case to the jury. To it no exception is taken.\nWe find no error.\nJudgment affirmed and appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Beawell for the State.",
      "No counsel contra."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WADDELL HADLEY.\n(Filed 13 April, 1938.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 79\u2014\nThe failure of defendant to file briefs works an abandonment of tbe assignments of error except those appearing on tbe face of the record, which are cognizable ex mero motu.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 80\u2014\nWhere defendant fails to file briefs, the motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal will be allowed, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 28, but in capital cases this will be done only after an inspection of the record fails to disclose error.\nAppeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., at February Term, 1938, of SAMPSON. '\nMotion by State to dismiss appeal of defendant.\nAttorney-General Beawell for the State.\nNo counsel contra."
  },
  "file_name": "0427-01",
  "first_page_order": 491,
  "last_page_order": 491
}