{
  "id": 8628427,
  "name": "STATE v. LEMUEL PARROTT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parrott",
  "decision_date": "1948-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "752",
  "last_page": "753",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "228 N.C. 752"
    }
  ],
  "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": "166 S. E., 734",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616433
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0686-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 N. C., 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11304501
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/220/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N. C., 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626783
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0620-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 2801,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072970277417718
    },
    "sha256": "ad7735ce1daef0d315fc99c6bc2de83dd1152f03fe24dcbb3202e768258adb95",
    "simhash": "1:e58d872557a34feb",
    "word_count": 490
  },
  "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. LEMUEL PARROTT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nAt tbe September Mixed Term, 1947, Lenoir Superior Court, presided over by Hamilton, Special Judge, tbe petitioner, Lemuel Parrott, was tried upon indictment charging him and another with tbe murder of one Kenneth Taylor, which resulted in conviction of the petitioner of murder in the first degree and sentence of death as the law commands in such case. G. S., 14-17.\nFrom the judgment thus entered, the petitioner gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, and was granted the privilege of appealing in forma pauperis, without giving security for costs, albeit the record shows no supporting affidavit as required by G. S., 15-181.\nBy consent, the petitioner was allowed ninety days from the adjournment of the September Term of court to make up and serve statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was allowed thirty days thereafter to prepare and serve exceptions or countercase.\nIt is alleged in the petition that due to illness and a misunderstanding on the part of the court reporter \u201cshe was unable to prepare a proper transcript of the evidence and the charge of the court within the time allowed this defendant to prepare and serve statement of case on appeal.\u201d\nIt is apparent from the foregoing that the petitioner fails to show merit or to negative laches. S. v. Lamphin, 227 N. C., 620, 44 S. E. (2d), 30; S. v. Wescott, 220 N. C., 439, 17 S. E. (2d), 507. Nor does it appear that the writ, if allowed, would accomplish the result desired by the petitioner. The time for serving his statement of case on appeal has expired. S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. And the order allowing him to appeal in forma pauperis appears to have been entered without supporting affidavit. S. v. Stafford, 203 N. C., 601, 166 S. E., 734.\nFor the reasons stated and on what was said in S. v. Lamphin, supra, and S. v. Wescott, supra, the petition for certiorari will be denied.\nThis leaves the appeal still pending, subject to dismissal on motion.\nCertiorari denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, 0. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Guy Elliott for the petitioner."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. LEMUEL PARROTT.\n(Filed 7 April, 1948.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 76a\u2014\nCertiorari will not be granted on the ground that due to illness and a misunderstanding on the part 'of the court reporter she was unable to prepare a proper transcript within the time allowed for service of statement of case on appeal, since there is a failure to show merit or \"to negative laches. Further, if allowed, the writ would not accomplish the result desired since time for serving the case on appeal has expired, and further, it appeared that the order allowing the appeal in forma pauperis was not supported by the affidavit as required by G-. S., 15-181.\nPetitioN for certiorari to have case brought up from Lenoir Superior ' Court and beard on appeal. No objection is interposed to tbe petition.\nGuy Elliott for the petitioner."
  },
  "file_name": "0752-01",
  "first_page_order": 798,
  "last_page_order": 799
}