{
  "id": 8613111,
  "name": "STATE v. RUSSELL BUCK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Buck",
  "decision_date": "1953-03-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "434",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "237 N.C. 434"
    }
  ],
  "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": "116 S.E. 161",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N.C. 637",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657355
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0637-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 S.E. 2d 924",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622750
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0130-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2815,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20716844881690014
    },
    "sha256": "fb0f4da5606d6f927e3b41462287b4eb0af7c6378d2eff759fd09d0d7bb208f6",
    "simhash": "1:5dd3f5b65a8cc4ef",
    "word_count": 483
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:56:56.799237+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. RUSSELL BUCK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nThe several assignments of error brought forward in defendant\u2019s appeal, based upon exceptions noted to ruling of the court during the trial, have been duly considered and found to be without substantial merit.\nThe defendant assigned error in tbe charge of the court in that, in referring to evidence of good character of the defendant the court charged that the jury had the \u201cright to consider\u201d this evidence in passing upon his guilt or innocence, and that the jury also \u201cought to consider it\u201d as corroborative evidence. It was argued that a distinction was thus made with respect to the consideration to be given character evidence on the question of guilt or innocence, and that to be given it as corroborative.\nThe portion of the charge to which exception was noted was as follows :\n\u201cHe (defendant) has offered in evidence the good character of him and his son. That is to be considered first upon the question of guilt or innocence. A man charged with crime has the right to show that he is a man of good character. The jury has the right to consider that in passing upon the guilt or innocence. You also ought to consider it as corroborative evidence.\u201d\nWe think it sufficiently appears that the jury was given to understand that it was their duty to consider character evidence in both aspects. The court charged this evidence \u201cis to be considered\u201d by the jury both as substantive and corroborative evidence. We.think no harm has resulted to the defendant from the manner in which this instruction was stated. It was said in S. v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E. 2d 924, that \u201cthe use of the word \u2018may\u2019 instead of \u2018should\u2019 in this excerpt from the charge is not prejudicial.\u201d See also S. v. Moore, 185 N.C. 637, 116 S.E. 161.\nThere was plenary evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty of assault with deadly weapon. The State\u2019s witness was shot in the face from a blast from a shotgun.\nIn the trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Gerald F. White, Member of Staff, for the State.",
      "Albion Duwn for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. RUSSELL BUCK.\n(Filed 25 March, 1953.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 53i\u2014\nAn instruction that the jury had the \u201cright to consider\u201d defendant\u2019s evidence of good character upon the question of his guilt or innocence, and also \u201cought to consider it\u201d as corroborative evidence, held, not prejudicial, it appearing that the jury was given to understand that it was their duty to consider the character evidence in both aspects.\nAppeal by defendant from Grady, Emergency Judge, January Term, 1953, of Pitt.\nNo error.\nThe defendant was indicted for assault with deadly weapon, to wit, a rifle and shotgun, upon the person of the State\u2019s witness. The jury returned verdict of guilty, and from judgment imposing sentence the defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Gerald F. White, Member of Staff, for the State.\nAlbion Duwn for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0434-01",
  "first_page_order": 478,
  "last_page_order": 479
}