{
  "id": 8619135,
  "name": "STATE v. NATHAN CURLING",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Curling",
  "decision_date": "1945-09-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "769",
  "last_page": "770",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "225 N.C. 769"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "sha256": "caadf297f6d2b5b3134c0d305ca21cef4c426d41e6ea585c079358d5770f0b5c",
    "simhash": "1:5a0d57db825b8401",
    "word_count": 258
  },
  "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. NATHAN CURLING."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe exceptions most stressfully argued on this appeal by the appellant, both orally and by brief, are the ones which relate to the court\u2019s refusal to grant the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss the action or for judgment of nonsuit duly lodged when the State had produced its evidence and rested its case and renewed after all the evidence was concluded, G. S., 15-173.\nThe defendant\u2019s appeal is virtually from the finding of the jury. We have carefully examined the record and are of the opinion that there is sufficient competent evidence to sustain the allegations of the indictment.\nWe have also considered all tbe exceptions set out in tbe appellant\u2019s brief and are of tbe opinion tbat no error prejudicial to tbe defendant was committed either in tbe ruling of tbe court upon tbe admission or exclusion of evidence, or in tbe charge to tbe jury.\nSince no new questions are presented on this appeal, it is not deemed necessary or expedient to discuss tbe exceptions set out in detail.\nIn tbe trial before tbe Superior Court we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes, Moody, and Tuclcer for the State.",
      "W. L. Whitley for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. NATHAN CURLING.\n(Filed 19 September, 1945.)\nAppeal by defendant from Burney, J., at July Term, 1945, of WASHINGTON.\nThe defendant was tried and convicted upon a bill of indictment charging him with an assault with intent to commit rape, and from judgment of imprisonment, predicated on the verdict, appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes, Moody, and Tuclcer for the State.\nW. L. Whitley for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0769-01",
  "first_page_order": 817,
  "last_page_order": 818
}