{
  "id": 8622690,
  "name": "STATE v. NORMAN LEE MINTZ; and STATE v. WILLIAM FLOYD BALLINGTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mintz",
  "decision_date": "1955-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "761",
  "last_page": "762",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "242 N.C. 761"
    }
  ],
  "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": "195 S.E. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 45",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626411
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0045-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1580,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.894904109420209e-08,
      "percentile": 0.46050175126040166
    },
    "sha256": "6a0cd524d8406a0d3d29811858e6d52655303147160a711912dac64416c64854",
    "simhash": "1:1ff40fb7ffb1d864",
    "word_count": 258
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:51:17.837681+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. NORMAN LEE MINTZ; and STATE v. WILLIAM FLOYD BALLINGTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR CuRiam.\nG.S. 14-177 defines the crime against nature as an \u201cabominable and detestable\u201d crime, and we held in & v. Spivey, 213 N.C. 45, 195 S.E. 1, that an attempt to commit the crime thus defined is an infamous act within the meaning of G.S. 14-3. We still adhere to that decision. Hence the sentence imposed in the court below was within the limitations permitted by law.\nThe other exceptive assignments of error present no substantial question which requires discussion. They fail to point out prejudicial error. Therefore, in .the trial below we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.",
      "Aaron Goldberg and Rountree & Rountree for appellant Mintz.",
      "W. Jack F. Canady for appellant Ballington."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. NORMAN LEE MINTZ; and STATE v. WILLIAM FLOYD BALLINGTON.\n(Filed 19 October, 1955.)\nCrime Against Nature \u00a7 2: Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 11, 62a\u2014\nAn attempt to commit tbe offense defined by G.S. 14-177 is an infamous act within the meaning of G.S. 14-3, and therefore sentence to the State\u2019s prison is within the limitations permitted by law.\nAppeal by defendants from Moore (Clifton LJ, J., August Term 1955, New Hanover.\nTwo criminal prosecutions under bill of indictment which charges that the defendants did feloniously commit the crime against nature.\nThe two causes were consolidated for trial, and the court submitted the evidence to the jury on the issue only of attempt to commit the crime against nature. There was a verdict of guilty as to each defendant.\nFrom judgments pronounced on the verdicts the defendants appealed.\nAttorney-General Rodman and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.\nAaron Goldberg and Rountree & Rountree for appellant Mintz.\nW. Jack F. Canady for appellant Ballington."
  },
  "file_name": "0761-01",
  "first_page_order": 803,
  "last_page_order": 804
}