{
  "id": 8608160,
  "name": "STATE v. JIM MOORE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore",
  "decision_date": "1939-11-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "543",
  "last_page": "544",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "216 N.C. 543"
    }
  ],
  "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": "210 N. C., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628566
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0686-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S. E., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 N. C., 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604956
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/199/0463-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S. E., 734",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616433
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S. E., 455",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 70",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595654
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0070-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0686-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2656,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7960506191616898e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7157004134217864
    },
    "sha256": "ae4713b7f2279e8592eabe54f55c693f5b874b71916b84f3acf7086ce7ee0285",
    "simhash": "1:a4ec8f3added24db",
    "word_count": 468
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:30.134660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JIM MOORE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nAt tbe July Term, 1939, Pender Superior Court, tbe defendant herein, Jim Moore, was tried upon indictment charging him with tbe murder of one John Robert Fennell, alias John Robert Findle, alias John Robert Mims, which resulted in a conviction of \u201cFirst Degree Murder as charged in tbe bill of indictment,\u201d and sentence of death as the law commands upon such verdict.\nFrom the judgment thus entered, the defendant gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court and was allowed 40 days from 20 July, 1939, to make up and serve his statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was given the \u201csame period of time to serve countercase.\u201d The clerk certifies that the \u201cappeal was not perfected within the time allowed by the Court, nor fourteen days before the call of the district.\u201d\nThe time for serving statement of case on appeal has expired. S. v. Watson, 208 N. C., 70, 179 S. E., 455. No bond was required as the defendant was allowed to appeal in forma pauperis, albeit the order to this effect seems to have been made without supporting affidavit as required by C. S., 4651. S. v. Stafford, 203 N. C., 601, 166 S. E., 734.\nIn the absence of any apparent error, which the record now before us fails to disclose, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss under Rule 17 will be allowed.\nThe defendant\u2019s application for certiorari must be denied on authority of S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. He applied to the solicitor for an extension of time before it expired, but this was not granted. Certiorari would not help him in the circumstances. Smith v. Smith, 199 N. C., 463, 154 S. E., 737.\nCertiorari denied.\nJudgment affirmed. Appeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan for the State.",
      "John J. Best for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JIM MOORE.\n(Filed 29 November, 1939.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 80\u2014\nWhen defendant fails to make out and serve his statement of case on appeal within the time allowed, no agreement for extension of time having been made, the motion of the Attorney-General to docket and dismiss will be allowed, Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 17, but when defendant stands convicted of a capital crime this will be done only when no error is apparent on the face of the record.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 76\u2014\nDefendant\u2019s application for certiorari denied on authority of S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, and held further, the solicitor having refused to grant an extension of time to defendant to file his statement of case on appeal, and the time allowed therefor by the Court having expired, cer-tiorari could not help defendant.\nMotioN by State to docket and dismiss appeal.\nApplication by defendant for certiorari.\nAttorney-General McMullan for the State.\nJohn J. Best for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0543-01",
  "first_page_order": 609,
  "last_page_order": 610
}