{
  "id": 8626500,
  "name": "STATE v. AUTRY LEE HADDOCK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Haddock",
  "decision_date": "1956-02-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "630",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 630"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 175,
    "char_count": 2045,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.617,
    "sha256": "a89c3cf12b703fc96baed7c81ff6f150c8bc8bf0205f6bbc97dcb81ac62aad40",
    "simhash": "1:e39fa614e63e5e50",
    "word_count": 327
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. AUTRY LEE HADDOCK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cueiam.\nThe State offered parol evidence of ownership and possession of the premises upon which the offenses charged in the indictments are alleged to have occurred. The court admitted the evidence over objection. However, substantially the same evidence was later admitted without objection \u2014 part of it brought out by defendant\u2019s cross-examination. The objection, even if valid, was waived. The evidence was sufficient to carry the cases to the jury. Debatable questions of law are not raised by the assignments of error and discussion is not required. Examination of the record reveals\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William B. Rodman, Jr., Attorney General, and Harry W. McGal-liard, Asst. Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Jones, Reed & Griffin for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. AUTRY LEE HADDOCK.\n(Filed 29 February, 1956.)\nAppeal by defendant from Bundy, J., November Term 1955, Superior Court, Pitt County.\nCriminal prosecution upon two bills of indictment, Nos. 5713 and 5714, returned at the October Term 1955, Superior Court, Pitt County. The bill in No. 5713 charged a felonious assault on Gene Lewis with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury not resulting in death. The first count in No. 5714 charged the felonious breaking and entering an occupied dwelling house in the nighttime for the purpose of committing a felony. The second count charged the malicious injury to certain personal property in the house. The third count charged the unlawful use of profane, vulgar and indecent language in the hearing of two or more persons.\nThe two cases were consolidated and tried together before a jury upon the indictments and the defendant's pleas of not guilty thereto. At the conclusion of the State\u2019s evidence the court dismissed all charges except that of assault with a deadly weapon and of breaking and entering without intent to commit a felony. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of simple assault and with breaking and entering without intent to commit a felony. From judgment on the verdicts, the defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nWilliam B. Rodman, Jr., Attorney General, and Harry W. McGal-liard, Asst. Attorney General, for the State.\nJones, Reed & Griffin for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0630-01",
  "first_page_order": 670,
  "last_page_order": 671
}