{
  "id": 8627267,
  "name": "STATE v. CECIL RAY DANIEL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Daniel",
  "decision_date": "1948-02-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "536",
  "last_page": "537",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "228 N.C. 536"
    }
  ],
  "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": "79 S. E., 596",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 N. C., 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271627
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/163/0274-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S. E., 664",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607442
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N. C., 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625851
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0449-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696602
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S. E., 255",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653606
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0574-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 2678,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.458,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20727752853544743
    },
    "sha256": "7e13d71b986df7f92b64d26d4401f41d2134866c31a2c9461653f488295b8fa0",
    "simhash": "1:9f91e38ced1a7d28",
    "word_count": 471
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:37.324265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CECIL RAY DANIEL."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\n\"While the transcript is somewhat deficient, as well as wanting in clarity, we think enough appears on the record, especially in view of the recitals in the judgment, to give us jurisdiction of the appeal. Hence, the motion to dismiss will be overruled. S. v. Daniel, 121 N. C., 574, 28 S. E., 255; S. v. Butts, 91 N. C., 524.\nIn addition to the peremptoriness of the charge, which seems to have silenced the jury, S. v. Godwin, 227 N. C., 449, 42 S. E. (2d), 617, there is neither plea nor verdict to support the judgment. S. v. Walters, 208 N. C., 391, 180 S. E., 664.\nA new trial seems necessary. It is so ordered. See Blake v. Smith, 163 N. C., 274, 79 S. E., 596.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.",
      "Sharpe \u25a0<& Pittman, Wiley L. Lane, Jr., Robert A. Farris, and Harry G. Finch for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CECIL RAY DANIEL.\n(Filed 25 February, 1948.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 80b (5)\u2014\nThe record in this case, while somewhat deficient and wanting in clarity, is held, to contain sufficient matter to give the Supreme Court jurisdiction of the appeal, and the State\u2019s motion to dismiss is overruled.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 52b: Constitutional Law \u00a7 33 \u2014 \u25a0\nIt is improper for the court to charge the jury that upon defendant\u2019s own testimony he is guilty of the' offense charged and that the jury must return such verdict, and thereupon to sentence defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Williams, J., at September Term, 1947, of WlLSON.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with assault with a deadly weapon resulting in serious injury.\nOn the night of 2 July, 1946, a dance was held at the \u201cpiccolo joint\u201d in Lucarna, which was attended by the defendant and Bud Rountree. Rountree says he tried to take care of the defendant as he was drinking and had his arm shot off when they reached his home. The defendant says he shot the prosecuting witness because he, Rountree, was drinking and intruding into his home frightening his wife and children.\nThe record discloses that at the close of the evidence, the court used this language :\n\u201cGentlemen of the jury, there is no evidence in this case indicating that Rountree had any weapon or that he attempted to use any weapon at any time. Under the defendant\u2019s own statement he would be guilty of assault with a deadly weapon and you must return such verdict. His sentence is six months, Mr. Clerk.\u201d\nThe record further recites that \u201cthe jury did not leave the room and did not raise their hands in voting for' a conviction Of the defendant of assault with a deadly weapon.\u201d\nFrom the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nSharpe \u25a0<& Pittman, Wiley L. Lane, Jr., Robert A. Farris, and Harry G. Finch for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0536-01",
  "first_page_order": 582,
  "last_page_order": 583
}