{
  "id": 8623493,
  "name": "STATE v. L. C. PARKER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parker",
  "decision_date": "1952-03-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "302",
  "last_page": "303",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "235 N.C. 302"
    }
  ],
  "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. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N.C. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609830
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N.C. 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627771
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0225-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 594",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602037
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 S.E. 2d 907",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 236",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621152
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0236-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 2093,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.269675917720777e-07,
      "percentile": 0.614468256643534
    },
    "sha256": "f340b8988de374bec241723ef23b5848f0611d617e76fb37ae8929bc09bd7181",
    "simhash": "1:762382739608828b",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:11.505162+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. L. C. PARKER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeviN, C. J.\nOn defendant\u2019s former appeal in this case (S. v. Parker, 234 N.C. 236, 66 S.E. 2d 907), his conviction on the charge of possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale was upheld by this Court and the case remanded to the Superior Court \u201cto the end that proper judgment be entered in accordance with this opinion.\u201d Judgment has now been rendered within the terms of the statute and in accordance with the decision of this Court. From this no appeal would lie.\nDefendant, however, moved in arrest of judgment and interposed plea of former jeopardy, on the ground that subsequent to defendant\u2019s conviction in the Superior Court he was acquitted in the Recorder\u2019s Court of the charge of possession of intoxicating liquor. His motion was denied, and plea overruled, and properly so, we think, for the reasons set out in the opinion in the former appeal. S. v. Parker, supra; S. v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E. 2d 594. See also S. v. Bell, 205 N.C. 225, 171 S.E. 50.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence was presented to tbe court below and was denied in tbe court\u2019s discretion. Abuse of discretion is not suggested. No question is presented for our decision. S. v. Lea, 203 N.C. 316, 166 S.E. 292.\nTbe judgment imposing sentence is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeviN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullam, and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.",
      "J. R. Barefoot and F. Reamuel Temple for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. L. C. PARKER.\n(Filed 19 March, 1952.)\n1. Criminal Raw \u00a7 21\u2014\nAcquittal on a charge of possession of intoxicating liquor in Recorder\u2019s Court upon a warrant issued subsequent to the institution of a prosecution in the Superior Court for possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale will not support a plea of former acquittal.\n2. Criminal Raw \u00a7\u00a7 57b, 81a\u2014\nMotion for a new trial for newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its refusal of the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by defendant from Sharp, Special Judge, December Term, 1951, of JohNstoN.\nAffirmed.\nAttorney-General McMullam, and Assistant Attorney-General Love for the State.\nJ. R. Barefoot and F. Reamuel Temple for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0302-01",
  "first_page_order": 352,
  "last_page_order": 353
}