{
  "id": 8625509,
  "name": "STATE v. HORACE BRIGHT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bright",
  "decision_date": "1961-03-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "226",
  "last_page": "226",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 N.C. 226"
    }
  ],
  "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": "113 S.E. 2d 921",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 483",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623594
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0483-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 S.E. 2d 405",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 N.C. 69",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619498
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/248/0069-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 111,
    "char_count": 1021,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2072462525807489
    },
    "sha256": "9b5693650e06df556a7e8d004c51f10592a10349db97e9c5d5d0cec6178aa65a",
    "simhash": "1:3c464f9a082a8852",
    "word_count": 165
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:35.681015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HORACE BRIGHT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nThe sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges was not challenged by motion to nonsuit or for directed verdict. To secure a new trial it is necessary for appellant, by proper assignment of error, Hunt v. Davis, 248 N.C. 69, 102 S.E. 2d 405, to show prejudicial error. Barefoot v. Rulnick, 252 N.C. 483, 113 S.E. 2d 921. Here appellant failed in both requirements.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.",
      "LeRoy Scott and Carter & Ross for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HORACE BRIGHT.\n(Filed 1 March, 1961.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 160\u2014\nAppellant has the burden of showing prejudicial error presented by a proper assignment of error.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, E. J., September 1960 Term, of Beaufort.\nDefendant was charged in bills of indictment with assaults with a deadly weapon. The cases were consolidated for trial. Verdicts of guilty of simple assault were returned. Prison sentence of thirty days was imposed. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.\nLeRoy Scott and Carter & Ross for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0226-01",
  "first_page_order": 264,
  "last_page_order": 264
}