{
  "id": 8571792,
  "name": "STATE v. HAMPTON LEE BRITT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Britt",
  "decision_date": "1965-01-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "535",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 N.C. 535"
    }
  ],
  "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": "116 S.E. 2d 194",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621960
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S.E. 894",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N.C. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653842
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S.E. 2d 769",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624570
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "113"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0101-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1620,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.594,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31531780424264116
    },
    "sha256": "464ac9783568d6c38aeecc9cd1fe24a5cbb09400888877a76d96d9d6100aed38",
    "simhash": "1:7c43868c5e86ac51",
    "word_count": 264
  },
  "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. HAMPTON LEE BRITT."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR CuRiam.\nDefendant claimed self-defense and testified in his own behalf. His brother-in-law gave testimony tending to support the plea of self-defense.\nDefendant excepts to the following excerpt from the charge: \u201cIt is your duty to scrutinize their (defendant\u2019s and his brother-in-law\u2019s) testimony because of their interest in your verdict. If, after doing so, you find that they have told the truth, it will be your duty to give their testimony the same weight as that of a dis-interested witness.\u201d\nThe instruction is not prejudicial. State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101, 113, 118 S.E. 2d 769; State v. Barnhill, 186 N.C. 446, 119 S.E. 894. State v. Turner, 253 N.C. 37, 116 S.E. 2d 194, is factually distinguishable.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Sanders for the State.",
      "Barrington \u25a0& Britt for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HAMPTON LEE BRITT.\n(Filed 15 January, 1965.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 111\u2014\nAn instruction of tlie court to scrutinize the testimony of defendant and the testimony of defendant\u2019s brother-in-law because of their interest, but that if, after such scrutiny, the jury should find that they had told the truth, to give their testimony the same weight as that of a disinterested witness, held without error.\nAppeal by defendant from Carr, J., May 1964 Session of Robeson.\nCriminal action in which defendant is charged with an assault with a deadly weapon upon one Frances Chavis, a female. From a conviction and judgment in Recorder\u2019s Court, defendant appealed to Superior Court where a trial de novo was had.\nPlea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty.\nJudgment: Active prison sentence of 2 years.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Sanders for the State.\nBarrington \u25a0& Britt for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 573,
  "last_page_order": 573
}