{
  "id": 8613982,
  "name": "STATE v. LUTHER KIMMER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kimmer",
  "decision_date": "1958-12-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "290",
  "last_page": "290",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 N.C. 290"
    }
  ],
  "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": "25 S.E. 2d 187",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598314
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0057-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1902,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30324296899162845
    },
    "sha256": "8a96da0b98b6cb2526e1a1b37ed2c47bcaac36ad477a9eb8232a95f014535052",
    "simhash": "1:53d3853135228c53",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "\u25a0 Parker, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. LUTHER KIMMER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe Attorney General rightly concedes that, on authority of S. v. Davis, 223 N.C. 57, 25 S.E. 2d 187, defendant is entitled to a new trial on account of error in the charge.\nDefendant\u2019s wife testified in his behalf. In reviewing the State\u2019s contentions, the court called attention to her status as an interested witness whose testimony should be scrutinized in the light of her interest. However, the court inadvertently failed to give an instruction to the effect that if, after such scrutiny, the jury believed her testimony, it should be given the same weight as the testimony of a disinterested credible witness.\nSince a new trial, must be awarded for the court\u2019s failure to give the indicated qualifying instruction, discussion of defendant\u2019s other assignments of error is unnecessary. The questions raised therein involve matters that may not recur at the next trial.\nNew trial.\n\u25a0 Parker, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.",
      ".. Frank Freeman for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. LUTHER KIMMER.\n(Filed 10 December, 1958.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 111\u2014\nA charge that the jury should, scrutinize the testimony of defendant\u2019s wife in his behalf, without giving the qualifying instruction that if the jury, after scrutiny, should believe her testimony to give it the same weight as the testimony of a disinterested witness, is error.\nParker, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., September Term, 1958, of Surry.\n\"Criminal prosecution on a three-count indictment charging (1) breaking and entering in violation of G.S. 14-54, (2) larceny, and (3) receiving stolen goods in violation of G.S. 14-71.\nThe court instructed the jury not to consider the third count.\nAs to the first and second counts, the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and judgment, imposing a prison sentence, was pronounced.\n\u2022Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.\n.. Frank Freeman for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0290-01",
  "first_page_order": 332,
  "last_page_order": 332
}