{
  "id": 8614408,
  "name": "STATE v. BULLY RODGERS, PETER LOCKLEAR and WEALTHY LOWRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rodgers",
  "decision_date": "1940-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "622",
  "last_page": "623",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. 622"
    }
  ],
  "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": "2 S. E., 441",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S. E., 81",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S. E., 160",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622242
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0571-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606085
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0343-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S. E., 91",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632760
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0738-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 160,
    "char_count": 1971,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9534352153992645e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7370541680229233
    },
    "sha256": "81c8a92a8097f7ef30d124f3e49ef7af0999f94f8a2b61c66ff0dd74758e0790",
    "simhash": "1:ba7a907270a7507c",
    "word_count": 335
  },
  "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. BULLY RODGERS, PETER LOCKLEAR and WEALTHY LOWRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss the appeal for the reason that no appeal lies to this Court from a discretionary determination of an application for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence must be allowed on authority of S. v. Ferrell, 206 N. C., 738, 175 S. E., 91, and Jarrett v. Ins. Co., 208 N. C., 343.\nThe case is not like Crane v. Carswell, 204 N. C., 571, 169 S. E., 160, where the \u201cnewly discovered evidence,\u201d as this phrase is defined in the law, was insufficient to invoke a discretionary ruling in favor of the movant.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Patton and Bruton for the State.",
      "J. B. Carpenter, E. J. & L. J. Britt, and D. M. String-field for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BULLY RODGERS, PETER LOCKLEAR and WEALTHY LOWRY.\n(Filed 22 May, 1940.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 58, 81a\u2014\nA motion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence, made in the trial court after decision of the Supreme Court affirming the judgment of conviction, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and its refusal of the motion is not appealable.\nAppeal by defendants from Nimodcs, J., at January-Eebrnary Criminal Term, 1940, of RobesoN.\nMotion by defendants for new trial on ground of newly discovered evidence.\nAt tbe May Criminal Term, 1939, Robeson Superior Court, the defendants herein were tried and convicted of conspiracy, burglary in the second degree, and robbery with firearms. From judgments entered, the defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The judgments were affirmed in an opinion filed 13 December, 1939.\nAt the succeeding term of Robeson Superior Court following affirmance of the judgments on appeal, the defendants lodged a motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence on authority of S. v. Casey, 201 N. 0., 620, 161 S. E., 81, and S. v. Starnes, 91 N. C., 423, 2 S. E., 441. The motion was duly considered and denied.\nDefendants appeal, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Patton and Bruton for the State.\nJ. B. Carpenter, E. J. & L. J. Britt, and D. M. String-field for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0622-01",
  "first_page_order": 688,
  "last_page_order": 689
}