{
  "id": 8571898,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL FESPERMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Fesperman",
  "decision_date": "1965-04-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "168",
  "last_page": "168",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "264 N.C. 168"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1641,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.609,
    "sha256": "edfc7d9548792a3d2d35dd2befa002ce7a8082785f358fc12bc715d55dee5c11",
    "simhash": "1:d7cd555de9aa8426",
    "word_count": 280
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:18:06.877661+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL FESPERMAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER C\u00fcRiam.\nOn authority of S. v. Hord, ante 149, we hold that a duly appointed policeman of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, is an officer of said City within the meaning of G.S. 14-230.\nThe ruling of the court below, quashing these bills of indictment, will be upheld for the reasons stated in the case of S. v. Stogner, filed this day, ante 163.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER C\u00fcRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard, Asst. Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State, appellant.",
      "Bailey & Booe for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL FESPERMAN.\n(Filed 7 April, 1965.)\nAppeal by the State from Latham, S.J., 14 December 1964 Conflict Criminal Session of Mecklenbubg.\nThe defendant was charged in Bills of Indictment Nos. 43270 and 43271 that on or about September 1963 he wilfully and corruptly refused and neglected to discharge one of his official duties as a police officer of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, said duty being to-wit: \u201cthe arrest, apprehension, and assisting in the arrest and apprehension of George Baker, 113 Sycamore Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, on the charge of flim-flam or larceny of property by trick or artifice, for the High Point, North Carolina, police department to the injury of the public and the people of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, all in violation of his oath and duty to the public,\u201d et cetera.\nThe defendant moved to quash these bills on the same grounds set out in the case of S. v. Ilord, filed this day, ante 149. The motion was allowed as to both bills, and the State appeals pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 15-179, and assigns error.\nAttorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard, Asst. Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State, appellant.\nBailey & Booe for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0168-01",
  "first_page_order": 204,
  "last_page_order": 204
}