{
  "id": 8570460,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHN EARL COX",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cox",
  "decision_date": "1964-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "609",
  "last_page": "611",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 N.C. 609"
    }
  ],
  "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": "134 S.E. 2d 334",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 N.C. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572663
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/261/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 322,
    "char_count": 5054,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.596,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20654486033741737
    },
    "sha256": "8500297214c9b21f6b5a8753e152ec69b5398a9463bcc2aa703a40f7918fe477",
    "simhash": "1:5cf305dcf334d557",
    "word_count": 855
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:24.361559+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHN EARL COX."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cueiam.\nThe defendant brings forward and argues in his brief only those exceptions and assignments of error set out in the record which relate to the testimony of the State\u2019s witness W. Knox Hardin, Chief of Police of the City of Shelby. Under the rules of this Court all other exceptions and assignments of error are deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783; S. v. Goldberg, 261 N.C. 181, 134 S.E. 2d 334.\nThe State\u2019s witness Hardin was permitted to testify without objection as to the statements made to him by Jimmy Eaves and John Wray. The statement made by Eaves to this witness, made in the presence of the defendant, detailed the manner in which the alleged crimes were committed, and corroborated the testimony of Hines who had testified without objection.\nThe exceptions and assignments of error relied upon by the defendants are set out below.\nThe witness testified that \u201cJimmy Eaves made a statement to me in the presence of the defendant, John Earl Cox, about the breaking and entering of Snowflake Laundry. I have a copy of the statement he made.\u201d The solicitor then propounded this question to the witness: \u201cQ. Will you-(objection \u2014 overruled \u2014 exception) say to the jury after Eaves made that statement what statement, if any, did Cox make. A. He didn\u2019t make any.\u201d Exception No. 1.\nLater in the examination, the solicitor asked the following questions of the witness: \u201cQ. Was John \u2018Dad\u2019 Wray present when that statement was made to Cox and in Cox\u2019s presence? A. Yes. Q. And you say Cox said nothing? A. He didn\u2019t say anything.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s counsel on cross examination asked the following questions: \u201cWas Cox obligated to say anything in that particular?\u201d Objection- \u2014 -sustained. Exception No. 2. \u201cQ. How many of these people that you questioned admitted they had a part in this breaking and entering?\u201d Objection \u2014 sustained. Exception No. 3 The witness further testified: \u201cI tried to question Cox during this period. Q. \u25a0 And he denied any knowledge of any of the charges, didn\u2019t he?\u201d Objection \u25a0 \u2014 'Sustained. Exception No. 4.\nLater, in the cross examination, defendant\u2019s counsel asked the witness what else he knew about the case except what Wray, Eaves and Hines had told him. Objection. The court then told defendant\u2019s counsel he could ask the witness about what \u201ceach one individually- \u2014 what they told him, if anything.\u201d Defendant\u2019s counsel propounded no further questions.\nSince the defendant did not object or except to the admission in evidence of the statement made by Evans to this witness in the presence of defendant Cox, or any part thereof, we hold that no sufficiently prejudicial error has been shown to justify a new trial.\nIn the trial below, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Assi. Attorney General Charles D. Bar-ham, Jr., for the State.",
      "C. B. Cash, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN EARL COX.\n(Filed 14 October, 1964.)\nAppeal by defendant from Clarkson, J.., January Session 1964 of CLEVELAND.\nThis is a criminal action in which the defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with forcing open a safe of the Snowflake Laundry, located at 403 E. Graham Street in the City of Shelby, North Carolina, on 23 December 1963, which safe was used for storing chattels, money, and other valuables, in violation of Section 14-89.1 of the General Statutes of North Carolina, and upon a bill of indictment containing two counts: (1) charging that defendant on 23 December 1963 unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously did break and enter a building occupied by the Snowflake Laundry, with intent to steal, take and carry away the merchandise, chattels, money, et cetera, of the Snowflake Laundry, and (2) charging that on 23 December 1963 the defendant did steal and carry away $400.00 in United States currency which belonged to the Snowflake Laundry.\nAccording to the testimony of Howard Hines, Jr., he and the defendant Cox and Jimmy Eaves broke into the Snowflake Laundry on the night in question; that Eaves and the defendant Cox carried the safe into the boiler room of the building and proceeded to break it open; that in the meantime Hines saw John Wray outside the window. They all left the building and talked with Wray. They told Wray that if he would watch out for them they would give him part of the money. Thereafter, they returned to the building and defendant Cox removed two money boxes from the safe. They took the boxes to the home of one Bernice Sutton, where defendant Cox lived, and divided the money. According to the testimony of Hines, John Wray was given $45.00, he (Hines) was given $50.00, and defendant Cox and Eaves kept most of the money. There was no objection to the admission of Hines\u2019 testimony.\nThe defendant offered no evidence.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts.\nThe court imposed a sentence of ten years in State\u2019s Prison beginning at the expiration of certain sentences theretofore imposed on defendant in other cases which were set out in the judgment.\nThe defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton, Assi. Attorney General Charles D. Bar-ham, Jr., for the State.\nC. B. Cash, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0609-01",
  "first_page_order": 653,
  "last_page_order": 655
}