{
  "id": 8559534,
  "name": "STATE v. BOBBY HUBERT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hubert",
  "decision_date": "1963-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "140",
  "last_page": "141",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 N.C. 140"
    }
  ],
  "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": "255 N.C. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569979
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 S.E. 2d 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569979
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0420-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 1779,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.488,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.206118194535666
    },
    "sha256": "492c9420936eae7bec264ed89359f69ee27223c007b1964c9c084307f074a88a",
    "simhash": "1:111054a820b60195",
    "word_count": 311
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BOBBY HUBERT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nTbe defendant 'assigns as error the action of the court in summarizing for the jury the testimony the witness bad given instead of leaving it to the Solicitor to re-question the witness.\nIn view of our recent decision in the case of S. v. Payton, 255 N.C. 420, 121 S.E. 2d 608, we hold that this assignment of error is well taken and should be upheld.\nOther assignments of error need not be considered since they may not recur on another trial.\nThe defendant is entitled to a new trial and it is so ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Asst. Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard for the State.",
      "John H. Cutter for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BOBBY HUBERT.\n(Filed 20 March 1963.)\nConstitutional Baw \u00a7 SI\u2014\nThe act of the court in recapitulating the testimony of a, witness which the jury could not hear, held prejudicial on authority of 8. v. Payton, 255 N.C. 420.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Emergency Judge, Regular October 1, 1962 Schedule B Criminal Term of MECKLENBURG.\nThis is a criminal action in which .the defendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with armed robbery of one Ernest McCoy, Jr.\nAfter the State\u2019s witness McCoy had testified for sometime, a juror spoke up and said: \u201cMr. Solicitor, we can\u2019t hear a word he says, see if you can clarify his speech, we can\u2019t hear a word he says.\u201d The court then said: \u201cI was afraid of that.\u201d Whereupon, the court proceeded to summarize the testimony the witness had given up to that time, after which the Solicitor continued his direct examination of the witness.\nAfter additional evidence had been introduced by the State and the defendant, the court charged the jury and the jury returned a verdict of guilty of armed robbery.\nFrom the judgment imposed the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton, Asst. Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard for the State.\nJohn H. Cutter for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0140-01",
  "first_page_order": 184,
  "last_page_order": 185
}