{
  "id": 8576398,
  "name": "STATE v. CLARENCE N. PERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Perry",
  "decision_date": "1963-12-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "769",
  "last_page": "771",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 769"
    }
  ],
  "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": "82 S.E. 2d 201",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601749
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0445-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3016,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.394,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20672382830041441
    },
    "sha256": "3dc9bd3555b4c2ebe75706ece60c2f18882bcdb7d0122654a8cc3e3a5ed90e68",
    "simhash": "1:9913edb86a33bfcf",
    "word_count": 495
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CLARENCE N. PERRY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant contends that the State\u2019s evidence was insufficient -to sustain the verdicts rendered below, and that his motion for judgment las of nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence should have been sustained.\nThe defendant relies upon the fact that the State used his conf ession as made to a police officer in Burlington, North Carolina. This confession was to the effect that he took two sticks of dynamite and capped \u25a0and fused .them; that he took this dynamite from his brother\u2019\u00bb home near Spring Hope, North Carolina, where he was living; that he got his nephew to take him to 1027 Rainey Street in Burlington, where his wife and children lived, on 13 April 1962; that \u201che lit the fuse, took the dynamite .and .threw it underhanded up beside the house.\u201d The defendant further\u2019 stated, according to. the testimony of the -police officer, that \u201che had no intention -of hurting his children.\u201d\nThe evidence tends to show that the home in which defendant\u2019s wife and children lived and the room in which they were asleep at the time, were substantially damaged and the wife was .seriously -injured. Likewise, the Oakley home located nearby was damaged.\nThe fact that -a confession contains exculpatory statements does not justify a nonsuit when the State introduce\u00ae substantive evidence in contradiction of such exculpatory declarations. S. v. Tolbert, 240 N.C. 445, 82 S.E. 2d 201.\nIn our opinion, the State\u2019s evidence was sufficient to withstand the motion for judgment as of nonsuit and to support the verdicts rendered.\nThe ruling below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Ralph Moody for the State.",
      "W. C. Bumgarner for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CLARENCE N. PERRY.\n(Filed 19 December 1963.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 85, 101\u2014\nThe fact that defendant\u2019s confession introduced in evidence -by th-e State contains exculpatory statements does noit justify nonsuit when -the State introduces substantive -evidence in contradiction of the exculpatory matter.\nAppeal by -defendant from Fountain, J.., May Criminal Session 1963 0'f ALAMANCE.\nAt \u00dche May Term 1962 of the Superior Court of Alamance County, the Grand Jury returned two- bills of indictment against the defendant, one charging that the defendant wilfully and maliciously damaged the residence of one Thomas Oakley by the use of an explosive, and the other 'charging he wilfully and maliciously injured Rosemond Perry, his wife, and damaged her residence by the use of an explosive.\nThe defendant was .tried and convicted on these bills of indictment, without the benefit .of counsel, at the May Term 1962 of the Superior Court of 'the aforesaid county.\nAs the result of a post conviction hearing, the defendant was granted a new trial with court appointed counsel. He was again tried and convicted on the original bills .of indictment at the May Criminal Session 1963 of the Superior Count of said county.\nThe cases were consolidated for trial and judgment. From the judgment imposed, the defendant appeal\u00ae, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Ralph Moody for the State.\nW. C. Bumgarner for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0769-01",
  "first_page_order": 809,
  "last_page_order": 811
}