{
  "id": 8575289,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES CHARLES DAVIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1968-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "273 N.C. 349"
    }
  ],
  "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": 244,
    "char_count": 3221,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.547,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.9911638190643547e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8517272628635878
    },
    "sha256": "cede5d2a1ba550e1b333154215f0a50e61953eaf9b2389da22fb54bfa4160018",
    "simhash": "1:df2e75ec2838508c",
    "word_count": 550
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:42.272754+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES CHARLES DAVIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR CuRiam.\nDefendant\u2019s brief brings forward the contentions (1) that judgment as in case of nonsuit should have been entered, and (2) that the verdict is contrary to the greater weight of the evir dence.\nOur attention is directed to the 1967 Act (S.L. 1967, c. 762), now codified as G.S. 15-173.1, which provides: \u201cThe sufficiency of the evidence of the State in a criminal case is reviewable upon appeal without regard to whether a motion has been made pursuant to G.S. 15-173 in the trial court.\u201d Even so, there was plenary evidence that defendant is guilty as charged. Motion (s) for judgment as in case of nonsuit, if made in apt time, would have been without merit.\nIt seems clear the verdict is in accord with the greater weight of the evidence. In any event, whether the verdict should be set aside as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence is for determination by the trial judge in his discretion. Certainly no abuse of discretion has been shown.\nSince defendant\u2019s assignments do not disclose error, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR CuRiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Rich for the State.",
      "Lila Bellar for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES CHARLES DAVIS.\n(Filed 20 March 1968.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 164\u2014\nThe sufficiency of the evidence of the State in a criminal case is reviewable upon appeal without regard to whether a motion has been made pursuant to G.S. 15-173 in the trial court. G.S. 15-173.1.\n3. Robbery \u00a7 4\u2014\nEvidence in this case held, sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of armed robbery. G.S. 14-87.\nAppeal by defendant from Snepp, September 4, 1967 Schedule \u201cC\u201d Session of MecKlenbukg.\nDefendant was tried on a bill of indictment which charged him with the armed robbery, as, defined in G.S. 14-87, of Donald R. Jones on January 29, 1967. He was represented at trial by privately retained counsel.\nThe State\u2019s evidence, in brief summary, tends to show: Jones was a taxi driver. About midnight on Saturday, January 28, 1967, in front of the bus station in Charlotte, North Carolina, defendant got into the front seat of the cab with Jones and gave directions that he be taken to an address on Burton Street. Upon arrival in the Burton Street area, defendant by means of a pistol drawn on Jones took from his person the cab company\u2019s money and the money from Jones\u2019s personal billfold. Jones was constantly put in fear his life would be taken until defendant left him. Defendant was arrested on or about February 3, 1967, in the Burton Street area. He was positively identified by Jones as the man who had robbed him.\nDefendant\u2019s testimony tends to show that he was not involved in any way in the alleged robbery referred to in the State\u2019s evidence,\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the bill of indictment; and the court pronounced judgment imposing a prison sentence of thirty years.\nDefendant gave notice of appeal.\nDefendant\u2019s privately retained counsel was permitted to withdraw. Thereupon, the court, on account of defendant\u2019s indigency, ap7 pointed defendant\u2019s present counsel to represent him on appeal and ordered Mecklenburg County to pay $11 necessary costs incident' to such appeal.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Rich for the State.\nLila Bellar for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 385,
  "last_page_order": 387
}