{
  "id": 8622579,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES E. PEURIFOY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Peurifoy",
  "decision_date": "1959-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "82",
  "last_page": "82",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 82"
    }
  ],
  "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": "85 S.E. 2d 342",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 382",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610947
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "383"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0382-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616840
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "241"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0237-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 763",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 652",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615507
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "655"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0652-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 154,
    "char_count": 2063,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4388531918270139
    },
    "sha256": "3e0a96e3404ba3a36ae71efc4d30e69f6aadb27e70221792766a5c3aad13cac2",
    "simhash": "1:e31c5c2c20be40ff",
    "word_count": 345
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:21.126874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Higgins J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES E. PEURIFOY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Curiam.\nThe case was fairly and fully tried. The references in the evidence and the judge\u2019s charge to trial in and appeal from Recorder\u2019s Court impaired in no way defendant\u2019s right to a trial de novo in Superior Court uninfluenced by the trial in Recorder\u2019s Court. S. v. Williamson, 238 N.C. 652, 655, 78 S.E. 2d 763. Indeed, such references were favorable to defendant. The judge\u2019s definition of the expression, \u201cunder the influence,\u201d is in substantial conformity to that given by this Court in S. v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 241, 37 S.E. 2d 688. The defendant has failed to show prejudicial error. S. v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 383, 85 S.E. 2d 342.\nNo error.\nHiggins J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.",
      "William Joslin for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES E. PEURIFOY.\n(Filed 14 October, 1959.)\n1. Griminal Law \u00a7 18\u2014\nThe references in the judge\u2019s charge to the defendant\u2019s trial in and appeal from the Recorder\u2019s Court, held, not to have impaired in any way defendant\u2019s right to a trial de novo in the Superior Court uninfluenced by the trial in the Recorder\u2019s Court.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 74\u2014\nIn this prosecution for operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway of this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court\u2019s definition of \u201cunder the influence\u201d held without error.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 160\u2014\nThe burden is upon defendant to show prejudicial error.\nHiggins, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Parker, J., April, 1959 Criminal Term, of New HanoveR.\nThis ease, upon appeal from the Recorder\u2019s Court of New Hanover County, was tried de novo in Superior Court. The warrant charged that defendant operated a vehicle upon a public highway of North Carolina while under influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs. Defendant entered plea of not guilty and a jury was chosen and em-panelled. Evidence was offered both by the State and defendant The jury returned a verdict of guilty.\nFrom judgment imposing a prison sentence defendant appealed and assigned errors.\nAttorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.\nWilliam Joslin for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0082-01",
  "first_page_order": 126,
  "last_page_order": 126
}