{
  "id": 8561574,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. IVEY BROOME, SR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Broome",
  "decision_date": "1966-10-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "298",
  "last_page": "300",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "268 N.C. 298"
    }
  ],
  "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": "156 S.E. 916",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. 342",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621477
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0342-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 S.E. 2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 N.C. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572845
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/261/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 625",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. 1120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8663019
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/1120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 295",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 N.C. 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622698
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/248/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 891",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "895"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "201 N.C. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626708
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "551"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/201/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 478",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626161
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0768-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 133",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8606351
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0226-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S.E. 2d 728",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 35",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8617151
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0035-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 319,
    "char_count": 3934,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.577,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3281755075004556e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6283825813782966
    },
    "sha256": "beead57ebda6773d4c110e55dcb432b2027fe3b2806008abb844e735c8871050",
    "simhash": "1:02018426569b10ef",
    "word_count": 680
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:01:58.333486+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. IVEY BROOME, SR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAt the completion of the judge\u2019s charge, and after the jury had been instructed to retire in order to consider its verdict, counsel for defendant requested the court to define \u201creasonable doubt.\u201d The failure of the judge to elaborate further upon that term constitutes defendant\u2019s only assignment of error supported by an exception in the record.\nThe judge submitted the case to the jury without stating the contentions of either the State or defendant. A careful examination of the charge discloses that he fairly and impartially recapitulated all the evidence, and that he correctly applied the law to the facts.\nThis Court has said many times that, in the absence of a request, trial judges are not required to define the term \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d in charging the jury in criminal cases. State v. Browder, 252 N.C. 35, 112 S.E. 2d 728; State v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133; State v. Lee, 237 N.C. 263, 74 S.E. 2d 654; State v. Steadman, 200 N.C. 768, 158 S.E. 478. \u201cWhen instructions are prayed as to \u2018presumption of innocence\u2019 and to enlarge on \u2018reasonable doubt\u2019, it is in the sound discretion of the court below to grant the prayer.\u201d State v. Herring, 201 N.C. 543, 551, 160 S.E. 891, 895. \u201cThe failure to define the words \u2018reasonable\u2019 and \u2018doubt\u2019 does no violence to G.S. 1-180.\u201d State v. Lee, 248 N.C. 327, 103 S.E. 2d 295. These words are as nearly self-explanatory \u201cas any explanation that can be made of them.\u201d State v. Wilcox, 132 N.C. 1120, 44 S.E. 625. Accord, State v. Phillip, 261 N.C. 263, 134 S.E. 2d 386.\nHere, counsel\u2019s request that the judge define \u201creasonable doubt\u201d was not in writing and was first made after the court had concluded its charge to the jury. G.S. 1-181; State v. Bose, 200 N.C. 342, 156 S.E. 916. Whether to comply with the request was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the judge. Although he might well have complied with the request and given the jury one of the definitions approved in State v. Hammonds, supra, and other decisions of this Court, his refusal to do so was not error. The record discloses no reason for disturbing the verdict; it leaves the conviction that defendant has had a fair trial.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General James F. Bullock, and Staff Attorney Leon H. Corbett, Jr., for the State.",
      "Peter H. Gems for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. IVEY BROOME, SR.\n(Filed 12 October, 1966.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 107, 113\u2014\nA request not in writing and first made after the court had concluded its charge that the court define \u201creasonable doubt\u201d is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the refusal of the court to recall the jury and give the requested instruction is not error.\nAppeal by defendant from McLean, J., July 11, 1966 Regular Schedule B Session of Mecklenbubg.\nDefendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with the felonious taking of $9.00 from the person of Brooks Robinson by threatening his life with a knife (G.S. 14-87).\nThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show: On the evening of February 15, 1963, Brooks Robinson, aged 62, was walking from his brother\u2019s house to a nearby grocery store in the company of one T. Tillman. They were joined by defendant, whom Robinson did not know. At the store Robinson purchased groceries and a jug of wine, and the three men started back toward Robinson\u2019s home. En route, defendant \u201cput a knife around Robinson\u2019s neck,\u201d demanded his money, took $9.00 and some change from him, and left. Later in the evening, defendant appeared at the home of Robinson\u2019s brother, threatened to kill Robinson with a pistol, and took the groceries \u2014 including the jug of wine \u2014 which Robinson had purchased earlier.\nDefendant did not testify, but he offered evidence contradicting that of the State. The verdict was \u201cguilty of armed robbery as charged in the bill of indictment.\u201d Defendant appeals from a judgment of imprisonment.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General James F. Bullock, and Staff Attorney Leon H. Corbett, Jr., for the State.\nPeter H. Gems for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0298-01",
  "first_page_order": 338,
  "last_page_order": 340
}