{
  "id": 8563427,
  "name": "STATE v. JOE HUGHES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hughes",
  "decision_date": "1967-01-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "306",
  "last_page": "306",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "269 N.C. 306"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S.E. 2d 54",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0140-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 895",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628203
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0054-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 1621,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.578,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2062664657283108
    },
    "sha256": "df4b06e6bf4520bed87c45750299fa0c61fc0e800c6acd51365557ee00ccee04",
    "simhash": "1:a636a17c5bab9d4d",
    "word_count": 275
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:18.626474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOE HUGHES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cuexam.\nThe defendant asserts no error except that the Judge\u2019s charge is not sufficient with regard to defendant's right of self-defense, both real and apparent.\nAn examination of the charge shows that it is carefully and completely worded in excellent form and is in almost identical words with those approved in S. v. Anderson, 230 N.C. 54 (56), 51 S.E. 2d 895, and S. v. Fletcher, 268 N.C. 140, 150 S.E. 2d 54.\nWhatever the shortcomings or derelictions of his son-in-law the defendant should let the courts adjudicate them. When he attempted to usurp their functions with his knife he was clearly in the wrong.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cuexam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Thomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General, Harrison Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, Donald M. Jacobs, Staff Attorney for the State.",
      "Boss, Wood & Dodge for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOE HUGHES.\n(Filed 20 January, 1967.)\nAppeal by defendant from Bickett, J., at February 1966 Criminal Session of Alamance.\nThe defendant was convicted of assaults with a deadly weapon, a knife, on his son-in-law, Elwyn Lee King, and the latter\u2019s father, Walter L. King. Upon sentences of 18 months pronounced in both cases, to be served concurrently, he appealed.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Elwyn Lee King had been separated from his wife Mary Jo, the daughter of the defendant, Joe Hughes, for some time. On 3 December, 1965, the Kings went from their home in Kure Beach to Burlington to pay Elwyn\u2019s wife for the support of their baby. At a parking lot where the wife worked they had trouble with her father. In the ensuing fight both the Kings were cut by Hughes, and these prosecutions resulted.\nThomas Wade Bruton, Attorney General, Harrison Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, Donald M. Jacobs, Staff Attorney for the State.\nBoss, Wood & Dodge for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0306-01",
  "first_page_order": 338,
  "last_page_order": 338
}