{
  "id": 8574219,
  "name": "STATE v. BERTHA PRUITT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pruitt",
  "decision_date": "1964-03-18",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "490",
  "last_page": "490",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 N.C. 490"
    }
  ],
  "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": "67 S.E. 2d 498",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 531",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624328
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0531-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 142,
    "char_count": 1371,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.603,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20666764741882634
    },
    "sha256": "5d36ecec7b24229530657db443db1ec8ca166a294adb0d4cdcd6923a2d5e8faa",
    "simhash": "1:3f07546a1cb418d1",
    "word_count": 221
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:45.776989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BERTHA PRUITT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant admits that she shot deceased with a pistol, but contends that in so doing she was acting in the proper defense of her person, that deceased was assulting her with a knife while they were in an automobile and she had no means of safe retreat.\nDefendant excepts to portions of the judge\u2019s charge, particularly to certain' instructions relating to defendant\u2019s plea of self-defense. The challenged instructions involve no novel or unusual applications of law. When considered in context and in the light of the evidence they do not constitute prejudicial error and could not have misled the jury. The instructions are in substantial accord with the repeated pronouncements of this Court. State v. Washington, 234 N.C. 531, 67 S.E. 2d 498, and authorities therein cited.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.",
      "Bailey & Booe and William L. Stagg for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BERTHA PRUITT.\n(Filed 18 March 1964.)\nAppeal by defendant from Clarkson, J., October 28, 1963 Regular Criminal Session of Mecklenburg.\nCriminal action. The indictment charges defendant with the murder of one Willie James Nelson. The State did not seek a conviction of murder in the first degree. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. From judgment thereon imposing a prison sentence, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.\nBailey & Booe and William L. Stagg for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0490-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 530
}