{
  "id": 8625387,
  "name": "STATE v. SAPHRONIA SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1959-11-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "328",
  "last_page": "328",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 328"
    }
  ],
  "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": "198 S.E. 616",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N.C. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629348
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0184-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 2023,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.464,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.391579791625811e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4424566837680498
    },
    "sha256": "b08eec1a4c414ad2f6bc85e00d5d715302b01e1864b8f76f4e33b9d4caa43e81",
    "simhash": "1:9e2671dcb228ac39",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:21.126874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. SAPHRONIA SMITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant does not challenge 'the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict and judgment. Her sole contention is that, upon objection 'aptly made, the court should have excluded and suppressed the evidence upon which the State based its case, i.e., facts discovered and evidence obtained by officers in the course of their search of defendant\u2019s residence.\nThe officers searched defendant\u2019s premises under authority of a search warrant. Defendant does not challenge the validity of the search warrant. Her contention is that the officers conducted the search in an unreasonable manner in that they entered her premises forcibly without first giving sufficient notice of their identity as officers or of their authority to make the search.\nUnder the common law rule the evidence was competent; and, except as modified by G.S. 15-27, the common law rule controls. S. v. McGee, 214 N.C. 184, 198 S.E. 616. Suffice to say, G.S. 15-27 does not make incompetent facts discovered or evidence obtained in the course of a search authorized by a duly issued search warrant. Hence, defendant\u2019s contention is without merit.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General S\u00e9awell and Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.",
      "Hammond & Walker for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SAPHRONIA SMITH.\n(Filed 25 November, 1959.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 79\u2014\nEvidence discovered in the course of a search under a duly issued search warrant is competent, G.S. 15-27, notwithstanding the contention that the officers conducted the search in an unreasonable manner in entering the premises forcibly without first giving notice of their identity or authority to make the search, the common law rule except as modified by statute being applicable.\nAppeal by defendant from Hall, J., June Term, 1959, of Randolph.\nUpon trial in superior court, the jury found the defendant guilty of (1) unlawful possession, and (2) unlawful possession for the purpose of sale, of intoxicating liquor; and from judgment, imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General S\u00e9awell and Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.\nHammond & Walker for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0328-01",
  "first_page_order": 372,
  "last_page_order": 372
}