{
  "id": 8571759,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM E. WILSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1965-01-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "533",
  "last_page": "534",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 N.C. 533"
    }
  ],
  "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": "105 S.E. 2d 294",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 125",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609819
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0125-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 275,
    "char_count": 3664,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.191910773631788e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9568438159908165
    },
    "sha256": "349e4a2d0d22d948a776d6e425b59bedc922381c1c93888bfb3f4437ae576acf",
    "simhash": "1:d060919a8a3699a0",
    "word_count": 609
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM E. WILSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nThe assignments of error based on exceptions to the charge are defective. The appellant should quote in each assignment the part of the charge to which he objects. An assignment based on failure to charge should set out the defendant\u2019s contention as to what the court should have charged. The assignments should present the questions without requiring \u201ca voyage of discovery\u201d through the record.\nThe requirement that the assignments disclose the matters alleged as error is for the benefit of all members of the Court in their pre-argument examination of the record. After the argument the author, in preparing the opinion, makes a meticulous examination of the record. Ordinarily, however, the other members of the Court examine and check the opinion in the light of appellant\u2019s exceptive assignments. \u201cAlways the very error relied upon shall be definitely and clearly presented, and the Court not compelled to go beyond the assignment itself to learn what the question is.\u201d Nichols v. McFarland, 249 N.C. 125, 105 S.E. 2d 294.\nThe assignments of error, when properly prepared, pinpoint the controversy. This Court is entitled to that assistance from appellant\u2019s counsel.\nThe record before us does not disclose error of law in the trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General; Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General; Richard T. Sanders, Assistant Attorney General; E. Glenn Kelly, Staff Attorney for the State.",
      "Clarence Boss, B. F. Wood for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM E. WILSON.\n(Filed 15 January, 1965.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 24; Criminal Law \u00a7 156\u2014\nAn assignment of error to the charge should quote the portion of the charge to which appellant objects.\n2. Same\u2014\nAn assignment of error based on the failure of the court to charge should set out defendant\u2019s contention as to what the court should have charged.\n3. Appeal and Error \u00a7 19; Criminal Law \u00a7 154\u2014\nAn assignment of error should point out the particular matter relied upon so as to avoid the necessity of going beyond the assignment itself to ascertain the question sought to be presented.\nAppeal by defendant from Latham, J., January, 1964 Criminal Session, AlamaNce Superior Court.\nThis criminal prosecution was based upon a bill of indictment charging that on July 21, 1963, the defendant unlawfully, wilfully, and fe-loniously assaulted J. D. Greeson with a deadly weapon, to-w-it: a pistol, with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury not resulting in death. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty.\nThe evidence for the State tended to show that the prosecuting witness, J. D. Greeson, and the defendant, William E. Wilson, were brothers-in-law. The prosecuting witness and his wife, the defendant\u2019s sister, had separated. In the afternoon the witness passed by the home where his wife lived, saw the defendant\u2019s and the defendant\u2019s father\u2019s automobiles parked in the yard, but did not stop. After night, according to his testimony, he drove back by the house. The automobiles were gone. He went to the back of the house and called his wife\u2019s name and receiving no answer, he said \u201cThis is J. D.\u201d As he approached the house from the back, he was shot twice with a pistol. At the hospital the doctor discovered two wounds: one through the arm and one into the chest cavity. It was the doctor\u2019s opinion that one bullet inflicted both wounds. The defendant told the officer he did the shooting but he shot to scare the intruder and did not think he hit anyone. There was evidence the pistol wounds caused serious injury.\nThe jury returned a verdict finding the defendant \u201cGuilty of assault with a deadly weapon.\u201d From the judgment imposed, the defendant appealed.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General; Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Attorney General; Richard T. Sanders, Assistant Attorney General; E. Glenn Kelly, Staff Attorney for the State.\nClarence Boss, B. F. Wood for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0533-01",
  "first_page_order": 571,
  "last_page_order": 572
}