{
  "id": 8631394,
  "name": "STATE v. BAXTER PARNELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parnell",
  "decision_date": "1938-11-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "467",
  "last_page": "469",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 467"
    }
  ],
  "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": "23 S. E., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 642",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0642-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S. E., 814",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 443",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606403
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0443-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 S. E., 713",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 N. C., 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11268841
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/147/0058-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S. E., 892",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602296
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S. E., 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N. C., 779",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620855
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0779-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S. E., 225",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 805",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621030
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0805-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 S. E., 18",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0686-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 S. E., 1000",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 N. C., 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662157
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/170/0710-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S. E., 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 661",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628027
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0661-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S. E., 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S. E., 586",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627011
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 S. E., 602",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 704",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613476
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0704-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S. E., 109",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 736",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632747
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0736-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 311,
    "char_count": 4818,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.511,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4504535284176606e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8040015074237918
    },
    "sha256": "7c2fe0edca840c02312e8ce4c4f623196c5031abfc6c8251afff16096b2f6eb3",
    "simhash": "1:fd0d72b553a0ac47",
    "word_count": 850
  },
  "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. BAXTER PARNELL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nAt the August Term, 1938, Cabarrus Superior Court, the defendant herein, Baxter Parnell, was tried upon indictment charging him with the murder of one Jane Fink, which resulted in a conviction of murder in the first degree and sentence of death. From the judgment thus entered, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and by consent was allowed sixty days within which to make out and serve his statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was given thirty days thereafter to prepare'and file exceptions or coun-tercase. Service of defendant\u2019s \u201ccase on appeal and assignments of error\u201d was accepted by the solicitor on 1 October, 1938. This was filed in the Supreme Court as the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d on 4 October, 1938, without agreement of the solicitor or \u201csettlement\u201d by the judge. C. S., 643 and 644; S. v. Ray, 206 N. C., 736, 175 S. E., 109; Carter v. Bryant, 199 N. C., 704, 155 S. E., 602. Nor had sufficient time then elapsed for it to be \u201cdeemed approved\u201d under the statute. C. S., 643; S. v. Ray, supra.\nThereafter, on 19 October, 1938, upon the call of the docket from the Fifteenth District, the district to which the appeal belongs, the Attorney-General lodged a motion to dismiss the appeal for failure to file brief and for imperfections in the record. A counter-motion for time to cure the defects in the transcript, to file brief, etc., was allowed because of illness of counsel which necessitated the appointment of additional counsel to prosecute the appeal. S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 459, 187 S. E., 586.\nFive assignments of error, all directed to the charge, are attached to the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d \u2014 considering it now as \u201cdeemed approved\u201d- \u2014 -but these assignments are based on no exceptions. Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., 428, 137 S. E., 175. Only exceptive assignments of error are availing on appeal. In re Beard, 202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748; S. v. Freeze, 170 N. C., 710, 86 S. E., 1000.\nNotwithstanding the insufficiency of the assignments of error to raise the questions sought to be presented, as the defendant\u2019s life is at stake, we have examined the matters therein pointed out and find them to be without substantial merit. S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. The case seems to have been tried in strict conformity to the law appertaining to the evidence and the charge.\nThe failure to have a \u201ccase on appeal\u201d or proper assignments of error, does not perforce work a dismissal of the appeal. Parrish v. Hartman, 212 N. C., 248, 193 S. E., 18; McMahan v. R. R., 203 N. C., 805, 167 S. E., 225; Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N. C., 779, 153 S. E., 398. Non constat that error may not appear on the face of the record proper. Edwards v. Perry, 208 N. C., 252, 179 S. E., 892; Wallace v. Salisbury, 147 N. C., 58, 60 S. E., 713.\nThe motion to affirm will be allowed. S. v. Dawkins, 190 N. C., 443, 129 S. E., 814; McNeill v. R. R., 117 N. C., 642, 23 S. E., 268.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Wettach for the State.",
      "R. Furman J ames and G. M. Lewellyn for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BAXTER PARNELL.\n(Filed 23 November, 1938.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 78b\u2014\nDefendant is not entitled to consideration of assignments of error to the charge which are not supported by exceptions, but in capital eases the Supreme Court may nevertheless consider the assignments of error.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 83 \u2014 Motion to affirm allowed in this case, defendant\u2019s assignment of ei'ror being without merit and no error appearing of record.\nOn this appeal from conviction of a capital crime, the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d was served on the solicitor and then filed in the Supreme Court without agreement of the solicitor or settlement by the judge, before expiration of the time allowed for filing exceptions or countercase, C. S., 643, 644, and before the lapse of sufficient time for it to have been deemed approved under C. S., 643. Assignments of error were attached to the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d but were not supported by exceptions. The Supreme Court considered the \u201ccase on appeal\u201d as \u201cdeemed approved\u201d at the time of hearing the appeal, and considered the assignments of error, since the life of defendant is involved. Held: The assignments of error being without merit, and the case appearing to have been tried in strict conformity to the law appertaining to the evidence and the charge, the Attorney-General\u2019s motion to affirm is allowed.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 80\u2014\nThe failure to have a \u201ccase on appeal\u201d or proper assignments of error does not perforce work a dismissal of the appeal.\nAppeal by defendant from Armstrong, J., at August Term, 1938, of Cabarrus.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one Jane Fink.\nYerdict: Guilty of murder in the first degree.\nJudgment: Death by asphyxiation.\nDefendant appeals.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Wettach for the State.\nR. Furman J ames and G. M. Lewellyn for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0467-01",
  "first_page_order": 535,
  "last_page_order": 537
}