{
  "id": 8625595,
  "name": "STATE v. EUGENE TATE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Tate",
  "decision_date": "1959-12-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "347",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 347"
    }
  ],
  "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": 117,
    "char_count": 1217,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "sha256": "7ef48f9ffb5fe43d62469059f1c90abdf4b7e120839aa6a6b6825370dd98d65d",
    "simhash": "1:73ab5533445f4063",
    "word_count": 199
  },
  "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. EUGENE TATE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nAll of defendant\u2019s assignments of error are to the charge of the court to the jury. The court\u2019s definition of the crime of larceny is in substantial accord with our decisions defining larceny. A careful reading of the charge in its entirety fails to show that the court implied or intimated an opinion in respect to the evidence. All of defendant\u2019s assignments of error have been carefully considered, and are overruled. Defendant has failed to show prejudicial error in the charge that would justify a new trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, and Harry W. McGalliard Assistant Attorney General for the State.",
      "Martin & Whitley for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. EUGENE TATE.\n(Filed 2 December, 1959.)\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, J., 13 April 1959 Criminal Term, of Guileobd, Greensboro Division.\nCriminal prosecution on a bill of indictment charging the defendant in one count with the larceny of a samder of the value of $366.00, the property of Herman Adams; and in another count with receiving the said sander knowing it to have been stolen.\nPlea: Not Guilty. Verdict: Guilty of larceny as charged in the bill of indictment.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment, defendant appeals.\nMalcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, and Harry W. McGalliard Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nMartin & Whitley for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 391,
  "last_page_order": 391
}