{
  "id": 8626503,
  "name": "STATE v. ROSSIE FREEMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Freeman",
  "decision_date": "1960-12-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "577",
  "last_page": "578",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 N.C. 577"
    }
  ],
  "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": 121,
    "char_count": 1310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.519,
    "sha256": "48b9c7e66d70a2ca6d6b8290b8f5c3ed21acdd4a874869c130e07a2d6616eb7f",
    "simhash": "1:c376457a2b141401",
    "word_count": 212
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:38.064481+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ROSSIE FREEMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CuRiam.\nThe court charged the jury the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty was a challenge to the credibility of the State\u2019s evidence, entitling defendant \u201cto an acquittal unless and until the State has satisfied you from the evidence and by its greater weight of his guilt.\u201d\nConviction could only be had upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. .The jury was so informed in a subsequent portion of the charge. The error in defining the degree of proof required was undoubtedly a \u201cslip of the tongue.\u201d Nonetheless, it was prejudicial, entitling defendant to a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.",
      "Hackett & Weinstein for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ROSSIE FREEMAN.\n(Filed 14 December, 1960.)\nCriminal Daw \u00a7 161\u2014\nAn inadvertence in placing the burden upon the State to satisfy the fury by the greater weight of the evidence must be held for prejudicial error, notwithstanding that in other portions of the charge the burden of proof is correctly defined.\nAppeal by defendant from Mallard, J., October 1959 Criminal Term, of Columbus.\nDefendant was charged with an assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious injury, not resulting in death. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. Prison sentence was imposed and defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.\nHackett & Weinstein for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0577-01",
  "first_page_order": 617,
  "last_page_order": 618
}