{
  "id": 8605431,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN FRIDDLE and GLENN PROCTOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Friddle",
  "decision_date": "1945-05-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "240",
  "last_page": "241",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 N.C. 240"
    }
  ],
  "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": "223 N. C., 258",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605178
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0258-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 1910,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2071439300129081
    },
    "sha256": "fab22e90de3bc90dfe296e1d02628e32b3cfe69d76d91d77d0549cd9d7b66b34",
    "simhash": "1:edb24238aea5cfb5",
    "word_count": 320
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:44.450219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN FRIDDLE and GLENN PROCTOR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThis case was here at Spring Term, 1943, and is reported in 223 N. C., 258. On that appeal a n\u00e9w trial was awarded for errors pointed out in tbe opinion written for tbe Court by Justice Barnhill. It was held that defendants\u2019 testimony raised certain questions as to felonious intent which were not properly submitted to tbe jury.\nOn tbe second trial below tbe defendants did not testify, or offer evidence. There was no evidence on this record, such as appeared in defendants\u2019 testimony on tbe former trial, that an employee of tbe prosecuting witness had authorized tbe removal of tbe sugar. It would seem therefore that tbe exceptions to tbe charge debated in defendants\u2019 brief on this point are without support in the record. In bis charge tbe trial judge correctly instructed tbe jury that before they could convict tbe defendants they were required to find beyond a reasonable doubt not only tbe breaking and entry and asportation of tbe sugar, but also by the same degree of proof that this was done witb intent to steal.\nExceptions noted by defendants to tbe ruling of tbe court on matters of evidence have been abandoned. Rule 28. They were admittedly inconsequential.\nIn tbe trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.",
      "P. W. Glidewell, Geo. Tounce, and J. Hampton Price for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN FRIDDLE and GLENN PROCTOR.\n(Filed 23 May, 1945.)\nAppeal and Error \u00a7 39e\u2014\nEvidence material to the decision on a former trial was not offered: hence exception to the charge on this point was untenable.\nAppeal by defendants from Olive, Special Judge, at October Term, 1944, of G-uileord. No error.\nTbe defendants were charged witb breaking and entering a store building and witb tbe larceny of a quantity of sugar therefrom. There was verdict of guilty, and from judgment imposing sentence defendants appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.\nP. W. Glidewell, Geo. Tounce, and J. Hampton Price for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0240-01",
  "first_page_order": 288,
  "last_page_order": 289
}