{
  "id": 8626695,
  "name": "STATE v. WALLACE M. PEGELOW, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pegelow",
  "decision_date": "1957-11-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "270",
  "last_page": "270",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "247 N.C. 270"
    }
  ],
  "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": 144,
    "char_count": 1883,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.408767690195799e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2764139917037634
    },
    "sha256": "be0fa98508b65b1ceaa67d93c79ce0fe0aec61cde7abfcf02cc214805a9f1763",
    "simhash": "1:452a08b1bda9d774",
    "word_count": 325
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.459804+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WALLACE M. PEGELOW, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe evidence offered by the State \u2014 the defendant offered none \u2014 is amply sufficient to carry the case to the jury. There is no need to soil the pages of our Reports with a recital of its sordid details. Indeed, the defendant makes no contention that the State should have been nonsuited.\nDefendant\u2019s assignments of error as to the evidence and as to the charge of the court to the jury have been considered, and none are sufficient to justify a new trial.\nIn the bill of indictment the defendant\u2019s name is stated as Wallace Pegelow. The record is captioned S. v. Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr. The defendant\u2019s brief is captioned S. v. Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr. At the May Term 1957 of the Superior Court of Guilford County the defendant by his counsel of record here, Mr. William E. Comer, made a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which the court denied for the reason that the case was pending in the Supreme Court on appeal, and therefore the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion. In this motion for a new trial, which was verified by the defendant, and signed by his attorney here, Mr. William E. Comer, the defendant\u2019s name is given as Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr. It is plain that Wallace Pegelow is the same person as Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Patton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General for the State.",
      "William \u00c9. Comer for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WALLACE M. PEGELOW, JR.\n(Filed 27 November, 1957)\nAppeal by defendant from Olive, J., March Criminal Term 1957 of Guilford, Greensboro Division.\nCriminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging the defendant with the commission of a crime against nature: a violation of G.S. 14-177.\nDefendant entered a plea of Not Guilty. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment the defendant appeals.\nGeorge B. Patton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nWilliam \u00c9. Comer for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0270-01",
  "first_page_order": 312,
  "last_page_order": 312
}