{
  "id": 8602051,
  "name": "STATE v. MOSE COX",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cox",
  "decision_date": "1940-02-28",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "178",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. 177"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "164 S. E., 737",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 13",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622578,
        8597916
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0865-03",
        "/nc/203/0013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 S. E., 590",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C., 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654529
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0516-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "101 S. E., 261",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N. C., 757",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274285
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/178/0757-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 S. E., 862",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N. C., 709",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659425
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/133/0709-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2082,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.436057418262789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27827027753355504
    },
    "sha256": "09efed3d89fcdf919dc6cbe9a0dc4d9c006a38e74511f22fdbf98726e7ab4d5b",
    "simhash": "1:6b06e18ae93863f9",
    "word_count": 366
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. MOSE COX."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, I.\nTbe only exception referred, to in defendant\u2019s brief relates to tbe judge\u2019s charge on tbe first count in tbe warrant. However, as there was a general verdict of guilty, and there was no exception to tbe judge\u2019s instructions to tbe jury on tbe second count which charged sale of intoxicating liquor, any error in tbe trial judge\u2019s statement of tbe law as to unlawful possession would become harmless. S. v. Holder, 133 N. C., 709, 45 S. E., 862; S. v. Coleman, 178 N. C., 757, 101 S. E., 261; S. v. Jarrett, 189 N. C., 516, 127 S. E., 590. There was no motion for judgment of nonsuit. Tbe appellant did not include in bis case on appeal tbe evidence adduced in tbe trial, but tbe statement of tbe evidence contained in the judge\u2019s charge which was sent up, and to which no exception was taken, shows sufficient evidence to support the verdict. The other exception noted by the defendant during the trial was not referred to in his brief, and therefore is deemed abandoned. Rule 28; S. v. Lea, 203 N. C., 13, 164 S. E., 737; In re Beard, 202 N. C., 661, 163 S. E., 748.\nIn the trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, I."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the Skate.",
      "LeRoy Scott and S. M. Blount for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MOSE COX.\n(Filed 28 February, 1940.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 81c\u2014\nWhere a general verdict of guilty is returned against a defendant prosecuted upon an indictment containing two counts of equal gravity, any error in the judge\u2019s charge upon one of the counts is harmless, there being no exceptions to the instructions on the other count.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 79\u2014\nAn exception not brought forward and referred to in appellant\u2019s brief is deemed abandoned, Rule 28.\nAppeal by defendant from Cowper, Special Judge, at November Term, 1939, of Beaueoet.\nNo error.\nThe defendant was charged with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, and there was a second count in the warrant charging him with unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. From judgment predicated upon a general verdict of guilty, the defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the Skate.\nLeRoy Scott and S. M. Blount for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 243,
  "last_page_order": 244
}