{
  "id": 8625890,
  "name": "STATE v. JOE TODD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Todd",
  "decision_date": "1960-06-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "784",
  "last_page": "785",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 N.C. 784"
    }
  ],
  "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": "28 S.E. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653809
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0650-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. 6",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8683594
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/14/0006-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 254",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 496",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607118
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0496-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1566,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.622,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.379383894582271
    },
    "sha256": "4d51bad0ee6b7441306e1eb3cdb73817e6cac4755ba93d8cadd0d9335f5bd5d0",
    "simhash": "1:0e3fae0624cd85cc",
    "word_count": 264
  },
  "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. JOE TODD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CuRiam:\nAll that appears in this case is the record proper, the Judge\u2019s charge and the defendant\u2019s assignments of error, all of which are addressed to portions of the charge. The case on appeal contains none of the evidence offered in the trial below.\nIn the case of S. v. Ray, 232 N.C. 496, 61 S.E. 2d 254, Stacy, C. J., speaking for the Court, said: \u201cEven if some of the instructions, standing alone, should be regarded as erroneous, they could not be declared prejudicial or hurtful, unless inherently and patently so, in the absence of the evidence upon which they were based or to which they speak. 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, \u00a7 1857, page 733; Pickett v. Pickett, 14 N.C. 6; State v. Wilson, 121 N.C. 650, 28 S.E. 416.\u201d\nAn examination of the assignments of error challenging the correctness of certain portions of the charge in the trial below, reveals no error and they are, therefore, without merit.\nThe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CuRiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton for the State.",
      "Hackett & Weinstein for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOE TODD.\n(Filed 10 June, 1960.)\nCriminal law \u00a7 161\u2014\nWhere the evidence is not in the record, assignments of error to the charge cannot be sustained unless the instructions are inherently or patently erroneous irrespective of any evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Carr, J., February Criminal Term, 1960 of Robeson.\nThe defendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with manslaughter. From a verdict of guilty of involuntary manslaughter and the sentence imposed thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton for the State.\nHackett & Weinstein for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0784-01",
  "first_page_order": 824,
  "last_page_order": 825
}