{ "id": 8558822, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL STEWART ALLEN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Allen", "decision_date": "1973-05-09", "docket_number": "No. 70", "first_page": "354", "last_page": "362", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "283 N.C. 354" } ], "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": "38 S.E. 2d 528", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621301 ], "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N.C. 982", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652726 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0982-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S.E. 2d 648", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 825", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615827 ], "year": 1944, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0825-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 S.E. 2d 69", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 224", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604318 ], "year": 1945, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0224-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 915", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219506 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0701-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S.E. 2d 626", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 N.C. 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574609 ], "year": 1964, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/261/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 343", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613296 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 769", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571055 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0769-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567347 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571013 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559741 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 N.C. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2092681 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/67/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 916", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608611 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561746 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E. 2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613655 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.E. 2d 288", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 688", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625874 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0688-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "268 N.C. 267", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561247 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/268/0267-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 378", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621871 ], "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S.E. 2d 107", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618419 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0516-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 850, "char_count": 18289, "ocr_confidence": 0.501, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2659666397970057e-07, "percentile": 0.6135902131745905 }, "sha256": "61fe01c1babde3b31d0c324e91d282a8d8ad4e0c963c54692b55d59185ef11c7", "simhash": "1:f72db03c167f4d31", "word_count": 3201 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:12.699050+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL STEWART ALLEN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MOORE, Justice.\nDefendant\u2019s assignments of error all relate to matters wherein defendant claims the presiding judge unfairly commented on the evidence or otherwise made prejudicial remarks, contrary to the provisions of G.S. 1-180.\nIn considering these assignments, we apply the following general principles. This statute imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute impartiality. Nowell v. Neal, 249 N.C. 516, 107 S.E. 2d 107 (1959). It forbids the judge to intimate his opinion in any form whatever, \u201cit being the intent of the law to insure to each and every litigant a fair and impartial trial before the jury.\u201d State v. Owenby, 226 N.C. 521, 39 S.E. 2d 378 (1946). It has been construed to include any opinion or intimation of the judge at anytime during the trial which is calculated to prejudice either of the parties in the eyes of the jury. State v. Douglas, 268 N.C. 267, 150 S.E. 2d 412 (1966); Everette v. Lumber Co., 250 N.C. 688, 110 S.E. 2d 288 (1959). \u201cThe trial judge occupies an exalted station. Jurors entertain great respect for Ms opinion, and are easily influenced by any suggestion coming from Mm. As a consequence, he must abstain from conduct or language which tends to discredit or prejudice the accused or his cause with the jury. G.S. 1-180.\u201d State v. Carter, 233 N.C. 581, 65 S.E. 2d 9 (1951). See also State v. Belk and State v. Pearson and State v. Berry, 268 N.C. 320, 150 S.E. 2d 481 (1966).\nDefendant assigns as error the following specific incidents which occurred during the trial.\nFirst, when Officer Wagner was testifying for the State, he was asked by the solicitor:\n\u201cQ. I\u2019ll direct your attention now, back to the time when Mr. Allen first came to your patrol car at point \u2018C\u2019 on tMs diagram and ask you to describe his demeanor at that time.\n\u201cA. He had an odor of some intoxicants.\n\u201cObjection as not responsive.\n\u201cCourt: Demeanor means how he acted, Mr. Witness, not how he smelled.\u201d\nDefendant contends that the court intimated that a defense witness had an odor of alcohol about him at the time to which he testified. TMs contention is obviously without merit. Defendant objected to the answer given by the witness as not being responsive. The court, as a result of this objection, simply explained the meamng of the word \u201cdemeanor.\u201d Wagner had already testified, without objection, that defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on Ms breath at the time of the alleged assault.\nDefendant next contends that the court erred when it stated to defendant\u2019s witness Harold Dayberry: \u201cTalk like you did that-night, Mr. Witness. Maybe they can hear you.\u201d Before this statement was made, the following occurred:\n\u201cQ. (By Mr. Daly) State your name, please.\n\u201cA. Harold Ray Dayberry.\n\u201cCourt: You\u2019re going to have to speak up so the jury can hear you.\n\u201cQ. Were you out at this store in Casar we have been talking about, sitting in Officer Wagner\u2019s patrol car under arrest for operating under the influence?\n\u201cA. Yes, sir.\n\u201cQ. Did you see the defendant Stewart Allen come up?\n\u201cA. Yes, sir.\n\u201cQ. Would you tell us what you observed happen between Stewart Allen and Officer Wagner and Officer Bennett? Just what you observed.\n\u201cA. Well, Mr. Allen walked up\u2014\n\u201cCourt: Raise your voice, please. The jury must hear you.\n\u201cA. Mr. Allen walked up and asked Mr. Bennett \u2014 I mean, Mr. Wagner, if the truck I had been driving could be moved.\n\u201cSolicitor : I can\u2019t hear.\n\u201cQ. Harold, if you would, face the jury, maybe it would help.\u201d\nAfter the defendant objected, the court stated:\n\u201cCourt: I\u2019m pleading with this witness to talk loud enough for the jury to hear him. The jury must pass on the evidence in this case, and they can\u2019t do it if they can\u2019t hear it. Do you understand that ?\n\u201cA. Yes, sir.\n\u201cCourt : Well, talk out loud.\u201d\nObviously, the court was having difficulty with this witness in getting him to speak out so he could be understood. The statement made by the court to which the defendant objected was clearly an effort to get the witness to speak louder. Since the record does not contain the testimony of defendant\u2019s witnesses, we do not know what the testimony disclosed as to the tone Dayberry used on the night in question. The language used by the court, while not as circumspect as it might have been, was not so objectional as to constitute prejudicial error.\n\u201c . . . Technical errors which are not substantial and which could not have affected the result will not be held prejudicial. State v. Norris, 242 N.C. 47, 86 S.E. 2d 916. It is not sufficient to show that a critical examination of the judge\u2019s words, detached from the context and the incidents of the trial, are capable of an interpretation frowhich an expression of opinion may be inferred. State v. Jones, 67 N.C. 285.\u201d State v. Gatling, 275 N.C. 625, 170 S.E. 2d 593 (1969).\nSee also State v. Alexander, 279 N.C. 527, 184 S.E. 2d 274 (1971); State v. McWilliams, 277 N.C. 680, 178 S.E. 2d 476 (1970).\nThe defendant next contends that the court erred in making this statement: \u201cMr. Sheriff, don\u2019t let any of those witnesses contact any of these jurors at all.\u201d Defendant contends that by this statement the court intimated that defense witnesses might attempt to speak with the jurors. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the judge was speaking any more, to defense witnesses than he was to the State\u2019s witnesses. Moreover, this sentence was only a part of a statement made by the judge to the jury when the court recessed for the day. The full statement is as follows:\n\u201cMembers of the jury, don\u2019t discuss this case or make up your minds about it. Should anything be in the newspaper, I. ask you on your honor not to read it. Whatever you arrive at must be limited entirely to what takes place here in the courtroom, not what is on the radio or in the newspapers, or anything. Nobody\u2019s going home to look over your shoulder to see if you\u2019re going to abide by that instruction, but on your honor, try this case based on this evidence, and nothing else except what takes place in this courtroom, including the instructions of the judge, the arguments of counsel and the evidence. Upon that, base the verdict that you arrive at in the final analysis. You go and come back at 9:30 in the morning, take the seats you now have in the jury box. Everyone else keep your seats until the jurors get out of the building. Mr. Sheriff, don\u2019t let any of those witnesses contact any of these jurors at all.\u201d\nPatently, that assignment is without merit.\nDefendant next contends that the court in its charge to the jury implied that the State had proved that the prosecuting witness had been stabbed or cut. When recounting the evidence, the court stated that Sheila Owens, a witness for defendant, testified that she did not see the defendant stab or cut the patrolman and that neither did other witnesses for the defendant \u2014 naming part of them \u2014 and then stated: \u201cNow, you may have a different recollection. If you do, you take your recollection. That the patrolman Wagner is the only one who testified that this defendant Allen stabbed him or cut him with a knife. I don\u2019t recall any of the defendant\u2019s witnesses seeing the patrolman cut or stabbed.\u201d This is apparently a correct statement of the testimony. In the case on appeal,' the testimony for the defendant is not brought forward but is only summarized in a brief statement. Nowhere in the record do we find anything that approximates a narrative statement of the evidence for the defendant. Under Rule 19(4), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, this is not sufficient. State v. Prince, 270 N.C. 769, 154 S.E. 2d 897 (1967); State v. Powell, 238 N.C. 550, 78 S.E. 2d 343 (1953). Hence, no error is shown.\nDefendant in this same connection further contends that the court implied that the defendant had used a weapon to cut the prosecuting witness when the court stated: \u201cYou just arrive at it [intent] from the conduct of the party, the type of weapon, and the place where it was inflicted, if you find that it was.\u201d The full charge as to intent to kill as given by the court was as follows :\n\u201cThirdly, the State must prove that the defendant had the specific intent to kill. That is, Allen had the specific intent to kill Patrolman Wagner. And in that respect, members of the jury, an intent in a criminal act is a state of mind which is seldom, if ever, capable of direct or positive proof, but it is arrived at by the circumstances of just such acts and circumstances as a reasonably prudent person would draw therefrom.\n\u201cAn intent to kill may be inferred from the nature of the assault, the manner in which it is made, the conduct of the parties and other relevant circumstances.\n\u201cAs I said, an intent is a state of the mind of the person charged, and is seldom capable of direct or positive proof. You just arrive at it from the conduct of the party, the type of weapon, and the place where it was inflicted, if you find that it was.\u201d\nThis charge is substantially as approved by this Court in many well-considered opinions. State v. Ferguson, 261 N.C. 558, 135 S.E. 2d 626 (1964); State v. Cauley, 244 N.C. 701, 94 S.E. 2d 915 (1956); State v. Murdock, 225 N.C. 224, 34 S.E. 2d 69 (1945); State v. Oxendine, 224 N.C. 825, 32 S.E. 2d 648 (1944).\nThe solicitor and the attorney for the defendant were unable to agree, and it was necessary for the presiding judge to settle the case on appeal. G.S. 1-283. Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to include in the case on appeal reference to three incidents which occurred during the trial. These are as follows:\n\u201ca. After selection and impanelling of the jury, the Court welcomed a group of visiting children to the courtroom, and expressed the hope that they would return to court from time to time, but not as defendants.\n\u201cb. The Court next thereafter inquired of defendant\u2019s counsel how many witnesses defendant would present.\n\u201cc. During the morning of the second day of the trial, it was interrupted for a time and the plea of one Max Edward Hamrick was heard, in the presence of the defendant\u2019s jury. During the course of his plea it developed that defendant Hamrick\u2019s driver\u2019s license was needed, but was then at the Spindale Prison Unit. The Presiding Judge then asked the witness State Highway Patrolman Bennett in the hearing of the jury to go' to Spindale and retrieve the license. Mr. Bennett then left the courtroom. A few minutes thereafter, he returned to the courtroom and conferred briefly with the Presiding Judge at the bench, and then resumed his seat. The Presiding Judge then explained to the jury that he had instructed the Highway Patrolman to go to the prison unit in Spindale to get defendant Hamrick\u2019s license, but that it had proved not necessary.\u201d\nDefendant contends that the court should not intimate that the status of being a defendant is unfortunate or that defendant is required or expected to have witnesses, and that the court should not make an errand boy of a chief prosecuting witness.\nIt is difficult to see how defendant could have been prejudiced by the omission'of these three incidents from the case on appeal. The first incident referred to a group of children visiting the court, and the presiding judge welcomed them and quite properly stated that he hoped they would return to court from time to time but that they would not return as defendants. The inquiry as to the number of witnesses which the defendant would call \u2014 and the defendant did in fact offer the testimony of 13 witnesses \u2014 was only to give the presiding judge some idea as to the length of time the trial would require. Patrolman Bennett was the arresting officer in the case in which Hamrick had previously entered a plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated, and it was the duty of this officer after the plea of guilty to pick up defendant Hamrick\u2019s operator\u2019s license. None of these incidents had any bearing on defendant\u2019s defense or tended to prejudice him in any manner. Had the judge- seen fit to include these three incidents in the case on appeal, defendant\u2019s case would have been in no wise strengthened. Be that as it may, these assignments are not properly before us.\n\u201cG.S. 1-284 requires the Clerk of the Superior Court to prepare a transcript of the judgment roll or record proper which is sent up on appeal. Under G.S. 1-283, the judge is given power to settle the case on appeal. Ordinarily, the only supervision which may be exercised over the judge charged with this duty is to see that it is performed. S. v. Gooch, 94 N.C. 982. Errors and omissions in the case on appeal are corrected upon certiorari and cannot be brought up on exception taken at the time the case is settled. Appellant has made no motion for certiorari, and the matter is not reviewable on the present record.\u201d Lindsay v. Brawley, 226 N.C. 468, 38 S.E. 2d 528 (1946).\nDefendant\u2019s exceptions taken at the time the case on appeal was settled are not reviewable on this record.\nIn the trial we find no error.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "MOORE, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Ricks III, for the State.", "George S. Daly, Jr., and Walter H. Bennett, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL STEWART ALLEN\nNo. 70\n(Filed 9 May 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 explanation by judge to witness \u2014 no expression of opinion\nWhere the solicitor asked a witness to describe the demeanor of one Allen, the witness replied that Allen had an odor of some intoxicants and defendant objected to the witness\u2019s answer as not being responsive, the trial court expressed no opinion in explaining to the witness what the word \u201cdemeanor\u201d meant.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 instruction to witness to speak up \u2014 no error\nWhere the trial court was having difficulty in getting an eyewitness to speak out so he could be understood, the court\u2019s instruction to \u201cTalk like you did that night, Mr. Witness. Maybe they can hear you,\u201d while not as circumspect as it might have been, was not so objectionable as to constitute prejudicial error. .\n3. Crimin\u00e1l Law \u00a7 99\u2014 witnesses\u2019 contact with jurors \u2014 instruction against not prejudicial\nInstruction of the trial court to the sheriff not to let any of the witnesses contact any of the jurors did not constitute error.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 .158\u2014 failure to state evidence in narrative form \u2014 no error shown\nWhere the record on appeal does not contain a narrative statement of the evidence for defendant, no error is shown in the trial judge\u2019s recapitulation of the evidence in the charge to the jury. Rule .19 (4), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court.\n5. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15\u2014 intent to kill \u2014 proper instruction\nIn a prosecution charging defendant with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injuries not resulting in death, the trial court\u2019s charge as to intent to kill which included the statements that \u201cintent is a state of mind of the person charged, and is seldom capable of direct or positive proof. You just arrive at it from the conduct of the party, the type of weapon, and the place where it was inflicted, if you find that it was\u201d was substantially in accord with those charges approved by the Supreme Court.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 154 \u2014 \u25a0 case on appeal settled \u2014 omissions not before court on appeal\nWhere it was necessary for the presiding judge to settle the case on appeal, defendant was not prejudiced in any manner by the omission from the record on appeal of three incidents occurring during the trial which had no bearing on defendant\u2019s defense; furthermore, these assignments of error could be brought up only upon motion for certiorari, which defendant failed to make.\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, J., at the 14 August 1972 Session of Cleveland Superior Court, transferred for initial appellate- review by the Supreme Court by order dated 26 March 1973 entered pursuant to G.S. 7A-31(b) (4).\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with an assault on L. D. Wagner with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injuries not resulting in death. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.\nThe State offered evidence tending to show: On 18 June 1972 around 8:30 p.m., L. D. Wagner, an officer of the State Highway Patrol, was in the process of arresting Harold Day-berry for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Wagner\u2019s car was parked on the shoulder of a' rural paved road near Casar, North Carolina. Defendant drove up near Wagner\u2019s car, got out of his car, walked up to the left side of Wagner\u2019s car, and asked if the truck which Day-berry had been driving could be driven away. Wagner noticed a strong odor of alcohol about the person of defendant and told him that the truck could be moved but if he drove it away he would be arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol. At this point defendant reached toward the door of Wagner\u2019s car. Wagner immediately got out of his car and informed defendant that unless he left he would be arrested for public drunkenness. As Wagner was walking toward defendant, defendant rushed at him and stabbed him in the back with a knife. Wagner then radioed Officer Bennett, another member of the State Highway Patrol, who arrived at the scene within a few minutes and arrested defendant. Prior to the arrival of Bennett, Wagner observed defendant holding a knife in his hand: The knife was taken from defendant by Bennett. It had blood on it at that time. This knife was introduced into evidence. Wagner\u2019s injuries required six days of hospitalization and necessitated his being absent from work for approximately three weeks.\nDefendant did not testify but his wife, his father, and several other witnesses testified in his behalf, and their testimony is summarized in the record as follows\u201cOfficer Wagner had come across the road toward defendant and struck him with the blackjack without reason, that defendant had never run at or cut Trooper Wagner, and that in the course of taking defendant into custody the troopers had beaten him, choked him and hit him with a pistol several times, to his injury, without defendant having resisted them.\u201d\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. From judgment imposing a prison sentence of five years, defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General Walter E. Ricks III, for the State.\nGeorge S. Daly, Jr., and Walter H. Bennett, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0354-01", "first_page_order": 382, "last_page_order": 390 }