{
  "id": 8570869,
  "name": "STATE v. CHARLES E. MORROW",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Morrow",
  "decision_date": "1965-03-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "77",
  "last_page": "79",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 N.C. 77"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 S.E. 2d 245",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570029
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0592-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 333",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 249",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0249-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219509
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N.C. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627240
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0620-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 265,
    "char_count": 4647,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9554480133318244e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7373203997607582
    },
    "sha256": "16758343a5ded2d22c984f192124eaf6278df62b9dd3dc996e36f64cf3a74f52",
    "simhash": "1:8b22955842be097c",
    "word_count": 785
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:18:06.877661+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CHARLES E. MORROW."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Cueiam.\nThe evidence offered by defendant in support of his motion was insufficient to establish the prerequisites for granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence stated by Stacy, C.J., in the oft-cited case of S. v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81. Moreover, a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court. S. v. Williams, 244 N.C. 459, 94 S.E. 2d 374; S. v. Dixon, 259 N.C. 249, 130 S.E. 2d 333. The findings of fact are amply supported by the evidence. As stated by Judge Martin, the testimony of Summers at the trial of defendant at said April 1964 Session \u201cwas merely accumulative and corroborative of the testimony of the witness Sara Lee Gui\u00f3n and Mr. Gui\u00f3n.\u201d Judge Martin, in the exercise of his discretion, denied defendant\u2019s said motion. No abuse of discretion is suggested and certainly none appears. We perceive no merit in defendant\u2019s appeal. Hence, Judge Martin\u2019s order will be and is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.",
      "George J. Miller for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CHARLES E. MORROW.\n(Filed 17 March, 1965.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 125\u2014\nRepudiation by one witness of Ms testimony at the trial is not a sufficient basis to invoke the court\u2019s discretionary power to order a new trial for newly discovered evidence when the testimony of such witness at the trial was merely cumulative or corroborative of testimony given by other witnesses.\n2. Same\u2014\nA motion for a new trial for newly, discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court\u2019s determination thereof will not be disturbed in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin, Special Judge, November 9, 1964 Special Criminal Session of MeCKleNbuRG.\nAt April 13, 1964 Special Criminal Session of Mecklenburg, the jury found defendant \u201cguilty as charged of the crime of rape with a recommendation of life imprisonment,\u201d and judgment of life imprisonment \u2022was pronounced. Upon defendant\u2019s appeal, this Court at Fall Term 1964 found \u201cNo error.\u201d S. v. Morrow, 262 N.C. 592, 138 S.E. 2d 245. Thereafter, in the superior court, defendant, attaching thereto an affidavit of Warren H. Summers, filed a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.\nAt February 3, 1964 Criminal Session of Mecklenburg, defendant, Charles E. Morrow, and Warren Hill Summers were indicted jointly for the rape on December 21, 1963 of Sara Lee Gui\u00f3n.\nAt said April 1964 Session, Summers, through counsel, tendered a plea of guilty as charged. The solicitor, with the approval of the court, accepted said plea; and the court, in compliance with G.S. 15-162.1, pronounced judgment that Summers be imprisoned for life in the State\u2019s Prison.\nIn the trial of defendant at said April 1964 Session, Summers, as a witness for the State, testified, in substance, that he and defendant had raped Mrs. Gui\u00f3n. Mrs. Gui\u00f3n and her husband, Benny Gui\u00f3n, as witnesses for the State at said trial, positively identified Summers and defendant as the men involved and testified that each had raped Mrs. Gui\u00f3n.\nThe affidavit of Summers attached to defendant\u2019s said motion for a new trial asserts that his testimony as a State\u2019s witness in the trial of defendant \u201cis false.\u201d\nA plenary hearing in open court on defendant\u2019s said motion, defendant being present in person and represented by counsel, was conducted by Judge Martin. Evidence was offered by defendant and by the State.\nAt said hearing before Judge Martin, Summers testified that he did not rape Mrs. Gui\u00f3n; that he did not see her on the night of December 21, 1963 or on any other occasion prior to his arrest; and that he was not with the defendant on the night of December 21, 1963.\nThe testimony of Summers at said hearing before Judge Martin was in direct conflict with: (1) Summers written (signed) statement of March 5, 1964; (2) his statements in open court in response to questions by Judge Braswell when his plea of guilty was tendered and accepted; (3) the testimony of counsel who had represented him prior to and on the occasion he tendered his plea of guilty; (4) the testimony of Mr. Stegall, one of the arresting officers; and (5) his own testimony at the trial of defendant at said April 1964 Session.\nAt the conclusion of said hearing, after stating his findings of fact and conclusions of law, Judge Martin, \u201cin the discretion of the Court,\u201d denied defendant's motion and ordered that defendant \u201cbe remanded to the custody of the State Prison Department.\u201d\nDefendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.\nGeorge J. Miller for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0077-01",
  "first_page_order": 113,
  "last_page_order": 115
}