{
  "id": 2219468,
  "name": "STATE v. CHARLIE BERRY BARHAM, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Barham",
  "decision_date": "1956-05-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "80",
  "last_page": "81",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "244 N.C. 80"
    }
  ],
  "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": 146,
    "char_count": 1783,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39456412323652845
    },
    "sha256": "0d69a295a96f74ba1eb132bb16a93902502c7014c5c6b3a4d93923aff954ef89",
    "simhash": "1:87624adab241e78f",
    "word_count": 286
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:24.689887+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CHARLIE BERRY BARHAM, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant seriously contends that the State\u2019s evidence is insufficient to support the verdict. A careful consideration of the evidence, however, leads us to the conclusion that it is sufficient, and we so hold. Consequently, the assignments of error, in our opinion, present no prejudicial error that would justify disturbing the verdict rendered below.\nNo error.\nJohnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Rodman and Asst. Attorney-General Love for the State.",
      "W. Brantley Womble and Ellis Nassif for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CHARLIE BERRY BARHAM, JR.\n(Filed 2 May, 1956.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 72\u2014\nEvidence in this case lield sufficient to support defendant\u2019s conviction of driving an automobile on the highways of the State while under the influence of intoxicants.\nJohnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Bickett, J., December Term, 1955, of Waice.\nThis is a criminal action. The defendant was tried on a warrant issued out of the Wake Forest Recorder\u2019s Court charging him with unlawfully and wilfully operating a motor vehicle upon the public roads of North Carolina on 13 March, 1955, while under the influence of some intoxicating beverage or narcotic drug. The second count charged the defendant with the unlawful possession of a quantity of nontax-paid whiskey.\nThe defendant was convicted in the Recorder\u2019s Court on the first count charging him with driving while intoxicated, and he appealed to the Superior Court. He was found not guilty in the Recorder\u2019s Court on the second count.\nDefendant was tried and convicted in the Superior Court on the first count in the original warrant. From the judgment imposed on the verdict the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney-General Rodman and Asst. Attorney-General Love for the State.\nW. Brantley Womble and Ellis Nassif for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0080-01",
  "first_page_order": 126,
  "last_page_order": 127
}