{
  "id": 8626173,
  "name": "STATE v. EDWIN WENRICH and RAMON BUJAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wenrich",
  "decision_date": "1959-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "460",
  "last_page": "460",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "251 N.C. 460"
    }
  ],
  "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": "135 S.E. 324",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N.C. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624123
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "493"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0490-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 834",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627999
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "663"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0659-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 2223,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.391,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.182502249975636e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9126144033879967
    },
    "sha256": "a7c281010a00070664805b737426940eb35970cdd203f4d5aa6cfaeee77071d7",
    "simhash": "1:5a7f10dd346c76d8",
    "word_count": 375
  },
  "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. EDWIN WENRICH and RAMON BUJAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nIn effect the trial judge instructed the jury that, as to each defendant, it should return one of two verdicts, guilty as charged in the bill of indictment or not guilty. \u201c. . . (I)n a prosecution for robbery with firearms, (or other dangerous weapons) an -accused may be acquitted of the major charge and convicted of an included or lesser offense, such as common law robbery, or assault, or larceny from the person, or simple larceny, if a verdict for the included or lesser offense is supported by allegations of the indictment \u2022and by evidence on the trial.\u201d (Parentheses ours.) State v. Bell, 228 N.C. 659, 663, 46 S.E. 2d 834. But .the -court should not submit to the jury an included lesser -crime where there is no testimony tending to show that -such lesser offen-se was committed. But where there is evidence tending to -show the commission -of a lesser offense the court, of its own motion, should submit -such -offense to the jury for its determination. State v. Holt, 192 N.C. 490, 493, 135 S.E. 324.\nIn the instant case the evidence was such that the jury might h-ave returned a verdict of common law robbery, assault with a deadly weapon or simple assault. There was error in the failure to -so instruct the jury.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Hooper for the State.",
      "Llewellyn & McKenzie for defendants, appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. EDWIN WENRICH and RAMON BUJAN.\n(Filed 16 December, 1959.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 109: Robbery \u00a7 3\u2014\nIn a prosecution for robbery with firearms or other dangerous weapon it is error for the court to fail to submit to the jury the question of defendant\u2019s guilt of the lesser offenses of common law robbery, assault with a deadly weapon on simple assault when there is testimony tending to show defendant\u2019s guilt of these lesser offenses.\nAppeal by defendants from Burgwyn, E. J., July 1959 Criminal Term, of MecKleNbuRG.\nDefendants were tried upon a bill of indictment charging them with the violation of G.S. 14-87, entitled \u201cRobbery with firearms or other dangerous weapons.\u201d The jury returned a verdict of \u201cGuilty of Armed Robbery\u201d as to each defendant.\nFrom judgment imposing prison sentences both defendants appealed and assigned errors.\nAttorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Hooper for the State.\nLlewellyn & McKenzie for defendants, appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0460-01",
  "first_page_order": 504,
  "last_page_order": 504
}