{
  "id": 8628401,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM TROLLINGER, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Trollinger",
  "decision_date": "1938-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "28",
  "last_page": "28",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 28"
    }
  ],
  "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": 136,
    "char_count": 1628,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "sha256": "63715ea78c3d4608edbdc2aa5176c690d22c0d6f3e8409d6a7963288d77bd0c6",
    "simhash": "1:114b3aa25f1d806a",
    "word_count": 265
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:13.292364+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM TROLLINGER, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape, and from judgment of imprisonment predicated upon the verdict defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nThe assignments of error most strongly stressed in the argument and in the defendant's brief relate to the court's denial of the motion for judgment as of nonsuit upon the charge of \u201cintent to commit rape.\u201d While the evidence bearing upon this phase of the case was circumstantial, it was sufficient, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, to be submitted to the jury.\nThe other assignments of error are to the rulings of the court upon the admission and exclusion of evidence, and to portions of the charge. We have examined with care each of these assignments. They present no new questions of law calling for discussion. Suffice it to say that we find among them no prejudicial error.\nThis case presented clear-cut issues of fact, which were impartially presented, and the jury, after viewing the witnesses and hearing their testimony, answered them against the defendant.\nIn the trial below we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMuJlan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Willis for the State.",
      "Harper Barnes, H. J. Bhodes, and John J. Henderson for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM TROLLINGER, JR.\n(Filed 15 June, 1938.)\nRape \u00a7 8\u2014\nCircumstantial evidence of defendant\u2019s felonious intent, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, held, sufficient to be submitted to the jury in this prosecution for assault with intent to commit rape.\nAppeal from Williams, J., at February Term, 1938, of AlamaNce.\nNo error.\nAttorney-General McMuJlan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Willis for the State.\nHarper Barnes, H. J. Bhodes, and John J. Henderson for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0028-01",
  "first_page_order": 96,
  "last_page_order": 96
}