{
  "id": 8599102,
  "name": "STATE v. CARL STANTLIFF",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stantliff",
  "decision_date": "1954-05-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "332",
  "last_page": "333",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "240 N.C. 332"
    }
  ],
  "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": "80 S.E. 2d 653",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "239 N.C. 560",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627863
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/239/0560-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 668",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625663
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 145",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622892
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0145-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S.E. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N.C. 428",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217692
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0428-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 S.E. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N.C. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659635
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0570-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 286,
    "char_count": 3981,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.914710270075894e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5358779604525206
    },
    "sha256": "debd6c2ff2cbc310cbb75ad2919f194b111670e8fec1fc9e5d97b804c2bb615f",
    "simhash": "1:447cdb38d2333de7",
    "word_count": 659
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:25.593057+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CARL STANTLIFF."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nPlenary evidence was offered in support of each averment of the bill of indictment.\n\u201cExceptions in the record not set out in appellant\u2019s brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be taken as abandoned by him.\u201d Part Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court of North Carolina. 221 N.C. pp. 562-563.\nTbe only exception set out in appellant\u2019s brief appears in tbe record as follows: \u201cDefendant excepts to tbe foregoing charge of tbe court. Exception 7.\u201d Upon tbis exception appellant bases bis only assignment of error; and be asserts in support of tbis assignment that tbe trial judge stressed tbe State\u2019s contentions to sucb extent as to constitute an expression of opinion as to defendant\u2019s guilt in violation of G.S. 1-180. Neither tbe exception, nor tbe assignment of error, nor tbe assertion in tbe brief, calls attention to any particular statements or omissions in tbe court\u2019s summation of tbe respective contentions. All are broadside and are insufficient to draw into focus any assigned error of law. S. v. Moore, 120 N.C. 570, 26 S.E. 697; Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N.C. 428, 137 S.E. 175; Poniros v. Teer Co., 236 N.C. 145, 72 S.E. 2d 9.\nHowever, we have considered tbe charge. No error of law appears. Too, tbe trial judge stated tbe contentions of tbe State and of defendant accurately and fairly. Tbe only possible basis for appellant\u2019s contention is tbe circumstance that more words are devoted to tbe summation of tbe State\u2019s contentions than to tbe summation of defendant\u2019s contentions. Tbis circumstance, standing alone, does not support appellant\u2019s contention. S. v. Jessup, 219 N.C. 620, 14 S.E. 2d 668; Edgewood Knoll Apartments v. Braswell, 239 N.C. 560, 80 S.E. 2d 653. Tbis circumstance necessarily resulted from tbe fact that, in tbe absence of positive evidence in behalf of defendant,- a summation of defendant\u2019s contentions rested on a very limited evidential base.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error is without merit.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Bobbitt, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Charles G. Poivell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State.",
      "F. D. HacTcett and Robert Weinstein for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CARL STANTLIFF.\n(Filed 19 May, 1954.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 79: Appeal and Error \u00a7 39\u2014\nExceptions not set out in the brief and in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, will be deemed abandoned. Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 28.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 78e (J): Appeal and Error \u00a7 6c (5)\u2014\nAn exception to the charge which does not point out any particular statements or omissions objected to is ineffective as a broadside exception.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 53f: Trial \u00a7 31e\u2014\nThe mere fact that the court uses more words in the summation of the State\u2019s contentions than it does in the summation of the defendant\u2019s contentions does not in itself support an assertion that the court expressed an opinion on the evidence in violation of G.S. 1-180.\nAppeal by defendant from Nimodks, J., September Criminal Term, 1953, of RobesoN.\nCriminal prosecution upon bill of indictment charging that defendant, Carl Stantliff, on 31 July, 1953, did \u201cunlawfully, wilfully and feloniously leave the scene of an accident, in which he, the said Carl Stantliff, was involved as the driver of a motor vehicle upon the highways of North Carolina, without stopping, leaving his name, address, operator\u2019s license number and the registration number of his vehicle with the person operating the other motor vehicle involved, and without rendering or offering to render reasonable assistance to a person seriously injured in said accident, in violation of G.S. 20-166 (a) and (c), against the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nDefendant pleaded not guilty. A jury trial ensued. Verdict: \u201cGuilty as charged in the Bill of Indictment.\u201d The court pronounced judgment of imprisonment, from which defendant appeals.\nAttorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Charles G. Poivell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State.\nF. D. HacTcett and Robert Weinstein for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0332-01",
  "first_page_order": 376,
  "last_page_order": 377
}