{
  "id": 8559208,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES ROBERT PIKE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pike",
  "decision_date": "1966-05-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "312",
  "last_page": "314",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "267 N.C. 312"
    }
  ],
  "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": 234,
    "char_count": 3342,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.666970501906556e-08,
      "percentile": 0.29317925485230995
    },
    "sha256": "ff64b055e513d48009458d4f0c01bc07e5f4aacce275d83641177ac2718c31c3",
    "simhash": "1:029e023835860ddd",
    "word_count": 573
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:57:43.953535+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Moore, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES ROBERT PIKE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAt the trial the defendant did not testify as a witness. He did not offer evidence. The State\u2019s evidence disclosed that the owner of the stolen articles lived in a Greensboro apartment; that the defendant had lived with him for eight days prior to the time the owner missed the articles, some of which were recovered from a \u201cloan and jewelry company\u201d where they had been pledged for a loan. The owner of the shop at first was equivocal about the identity of the defendant as the one who pawned the stolen articles. In summing up the State\u2019s evidence, however, the court charged the jury: \u201cThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show by Mr. Kelly that on 7 August 1965, that he met the defendant in Graham, in a prison camp in Graham.\u201d The record fails to disclose any such evidence from Mr. Kelly or any other witness. The court\u2019s statement was the subject of Assignment of Error No. 5, based on Exception No. 5. The Attorney General\u2019s brief says of the challenged statement: \u201cThis may or may not be prejudicial.\u201d\nTrue, the defendant did not request the court to correct the statement with reference to the testimony of the prosecuting witness and the defendant having met at a prison camp. Any objection on the part of counsel, short of a denial by the defendant which would have required him to testify as a witness, would have been of doubtful value in view of the court\u2019s unjustified statement. The court committed error, probably prejudicial, by this statement. In view of the equivocal nature of the evidence and the failure of the jury to agree on a former trial, we deem the court\u2019s error in placing him in a prison camp as sufficiently prejudicial to require that he be given, and he is awarded, a\nNew trial.\nMoore, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, George A. Goodwyn, Assistant Attorney General for the State.",
      "Robert A. Merritt for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES ROBERT PIKE.\n(Filed 11 May, 1966.)\nCriminal Taw \u00a7 108\u2014\nThe court, in setting forth the contentions, stated, without basis in the evidence, that a State\u2019s witness had testified that he had met defendant in a prison camp. Seld: Defendant could not have effectively controverted the misstatement without going upon the stand and, in view of the facts of this ease, the statement, even in the absence of request for correction, must be held sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial.\nMoore, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from McLaughlin, J., October, 1965 Criminal Session, Guilford Superior Court, Greensboro Division.\nThe defendant was arrested in High Point on August 18, 1965, and charged in a Municipal-County warrant with the larceny of specific articles of personal property of James Kelly of the value of $310.00. The defendant, not being represented by counsel, was bound over to the Superior Court. Upon a showing of indigency, the present counsel of record was appointed to represent the defendant. Both the defendant and his counsel waived indictment and consented that the defendant be tried on information which conformed to the charge in the warrant.\nAt the first trial on September 22, 1965, the jury was unable to agree on a verdict. The court ordered a mistrial. At the second trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty. From a sentence of 4 to 7 years in the State\u2019s prison, the defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General, George A. Goodwyn, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nRobert A. Merritt for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0312-01",
  "first_page_order": 348,
  "last_page_order": 350
}