{
  "id": 8609935,
  "name": "STATE v. ROBERT AARON GARNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Garner",
  "decision_date": "1958-10-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "127",
  "last_page": "128",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 N.C. 127"
    }
  ],
  "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": "34 S.E. 2d 408",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 364",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608095
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0364-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S.E. 2d 926",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617602
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2044,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30867147080775753
    },
    "sha256": "a99543b5ba443b9210f4f7af8553eea2e80df286c8efe9c4c58f3513b36e2db8",
    "simhash": "1:ca1f715e3398b969",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PARKER, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ROBERT AARON GARNER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was ample evidence to support the verdict. Indeed, no question is raised as to the sufficiency of the evidence. The assignments of error brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief, referred to below, relate solely to the charge.\nAssignments 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8, based on exceptions of like number, are directed to designated portions of the charge. Assignment 9, based on Exception 9, is directed to the failure of the court to instruct the jury as set out in this exception and assignment. Assignments 11, 12, and 13 are not supported by exceptions; hence, no question of law is presented thereby. Rigsbee v. Perkins, 242 N.C. 502, 87 S.E. 2d 926; S. v. Britt, 225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E. 2d 408.\nCareful consideration of each of defendant\u2019s assignments fails to disclose prejudicial error; for the charge, when read as a composite whole, indicates clearly that the applicable principles of law were presented in such manner as to leave no reasonable ground to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled. Hence, defendant\u2019s assignments are overruled.\nNo error.\nPARKER, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Mc-Galliard for the State.",
      "Hugh M. Currin for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ROBERT AARON GARNER.\n(Filed 29 October, 1958.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 154\u2014\nAn assignment of error not supported by an exception is ineffectual.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 156\u2014\nWhen the charge read contextually clearly presents the applicable principles of law in such manner as to leave no reasonable ground to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled, an assignment of error \u25a0thereto cannot be sustained.\nParker, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, J., January Term, 1958, of Granville.\nIndicted for the murder of Murphy Ellis, defendant was put on trial for second degree murder or manslaughter as the evidence might justify.\nThe jury\u2019s verdict was \u201cGuilty of Manslaughter.\u201d Thereupon, the court pronounced judgment imposing a prison sentence of 15 years, from which defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Mc-Galliard for the State.\nHugh M. Currin for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0127-01",
  "first_page_order": 169,
  "last_page_order": 170
}