{
  "id": 8632122,
  "name": "STATE v. BAT DeJOURNETTE, KATE DeJOURNETTE and ELMER WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. DeJournette",
  "decision_date": "1938-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "576",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "214 N.C. 575"
    }
  ],
  "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": "136 S. E., 193",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 25",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217673
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0025-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 2112,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1673010809393296e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5854462943592464
    },
    "sha256": "13487a6e7a0fe05177b34ffad892c09bc51e7feb9d684414aced996e16311210",
    "simhash": "1:5fb2580f2a391c1b",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "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. BAT DeJOURNETTE, KATE DeJOURNETTE and ELMER WILLIAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe transcript consists of tbe record proper, tbe charge of tbe court, and a number of exceptions to tbe charge. This is agreed to as tbe case on appeal. S. v. Dee, ante, 509. Nothing else appears on tbe record. S. v. Ross, 193 N. C., 25, 136 S. E., 193.\nWith no knowledge of bow tbe homicide occurred or what tbe evidence was \u2014 and this is a matter we can know judicially only from tbe record' \u2014 \u2022 we cannot say tbe instructions complained of are prejudicial or hurtful, even if theoretically they appear to be slightly erroneous in some particulars.\nNo reversible error having been shown, tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BAT DeJOURNETTE, KATE DeJOURNETTE and ELMER WILLIAMS.\n(Filed 14 December, 1938.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 77d\u2014\nThe Supreme Court can judicially know only what appears from the record.\nS. Criminal Law \u00a7 81b\u2014\nWhen it cannot he determined from the record that the instructions excepted to are prejudicial, the record failing to show how the homicide occurred or what the evidence was, the exceptions cannot be sustained, appellant having failed to show reversible error.\nAppeal by defendant Bat DeJournette from Pless, J., at May Term, 1938, of Guilporb.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon indictment charging Bat DeJour-nette, bis wife, Kate DeJournette, and Elmer \"Williams with tbe murder of one Garland Mangum.\nUpon tbe call of tbe case for trial, Elmer Williams tendered a plea of \u201cguilty of accessory before tbe fact to murder in tbe first degree,\u201d which plea was accepted by tbe State. Tbe defendants Bat DeJournette and Kate DeJournette pleaded not guilty, and were tried by a jury.\nYerdict: Bat DeJournette, \u201cguilty of murder in the first degree as charged in tbe bill of indictment\u201d; Kate DeJournette, \u201cguilty accessory after tbe fact of murder in tbe first degree.\u201d\nJudgment as to Bat DeJournette: Death by asphyxiation.\nTbe defendant Bat DeJournette appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMuTlan and Assistant Attorney s-General Bruton and Wettach for.the State.\nSpencer B. Adams and Broolcs, McLendon & Eolderness for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 643,
  "last_page_order": 644
}