{
  "id": 8620882,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES EDWARD MUMFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mumford",
  "decision_date": "1960-03-23",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "227",
  "last_page": "228",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 N.C. 227"
    }
  ],
  "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": "90 S.E. 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N.C. 401",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254161
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "406"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0401-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "109 S.E. 2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N. C. 533",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624805
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "539"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0533-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3241,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.5754854646575e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40273988946845934
    },
    "sha256": "b2c642d8be35344b275f5045f0b2c142d11f7783b8db6a1910e71ec6e0b074ca",
    "simhash": "1:1f05ff683215a3db",
    "word_count": 531
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:30:54.749131+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES EDWARD MUMFORD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CuRiam.\nDuring cross-examination of a defense witness by the Solicitor, counsel for defendant objected \u201cto the Solicitor smiling and laughing when cross-examining the witness.\u201d Thereupon the trial judge reproved: \u201cLook sour, Mr. Solicitor.\u201d Defendant insists that the conduct of the Solicitor and the admonition of the court interjected such levity as to \u201ctotally discredit and impeach the witness.\u201d\nA careful reading of the record in context fails to disclose what occasioned the mirth and pleasantry complained of. The content of the testimony gives no clue. \u201cThe burden is on the appellant not only to show error, but to show prejudicial error amounting to the denial of some substantial right.\u201d Taylor Co. v. Highway Commission, 250 N. C. 533, 539, 109 S.E. 2d 243. The record fails to show that the statement of the trial judge tended to cast doubt upon the testimony of the witness or to impeach his credibility.\nDefendant excepted to the charge of the court with reference to a prior conviction of defendant on a similar charge. During the course of the trial defendant, in open court, admitted a prior conviction. After such judicial admission, the court had the right to assume that it was true and to peremptorily instruct the jury to so consider it. Miller v. Mateer, 172 N.C. 401, 406, 90 S.E. 435.\nThe State\u2019s evidience was sufficient to take the case to the jury. The charge is free of prejudicial error. In the conduct of the trial we find nothing that justifies a new trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney McGalliard for the State.",
      "Clarence E. Gerrans for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES EDWARD MUMFORD.\n(Filed 23 March, 1960.)\n1. Criminal Daw \u00a7 94\u2014\nThe statement of the court upon objection by defendant\u2019s counsel to the solicitor\u2019s smiling and laughing while cross-examining defendant\u2019s witness, \u201cLook sour, Mr. Solicitor\u201d cannot be held prejudicial when the record fails to show what occasioned the mirth and pleasantry complained of, since in the absence of such showing it cannot be ascertained that the occurrence had the effect of discrediting the witness.\na. Criminal Law \u00a7 160\u2014\nThe burden is on appellant to show that the error complained of was prejudicial and amounted to a denial of a substantial right.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 75: Criminal Law \u00a7 134\u2014\nWhere, in a prosecution for operating a vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, defendant admits in his testimony that he had theretofore been convicted of a similar offense, the court may assume the .truth of .the admission and instruct the jury peremptorily that if it should find the defendant guilty the verdict should show that it was for a second offense.\nAppeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., October-November 1959 Term, of LeNOir.\nDefendant was tried in the Municipal-County Court of Kinston and Lenoir County on charge of operating a vehicle on the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, this being \u201cthe second such offense.\u201d From adverse verdict and judgment he appealed to Superior Court and trial was had de novo.\nPlea: Not guilty. Verdict: \u201cGuilty as'charged, second Offense.\u201d\nJudgment: Prison sentence, 3 months.\nDefendant appealed and assigned errors.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney McGalliard for the State.\nClarence E. Gerrans for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0227-01",
  "first_page_order": 267,
  "last_page_order": 268
}