{
  "id": 8562819,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUDOLPH BERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Berry",
  "decision_date": "1983-01-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 508A82",
  "first_page": "463",
  "last_page": "463",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "307 N.C. 463"
    }
  ],
  "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": "293 S.E. 2d 650",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 N.C. App. 355",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524994
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/58/0355-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1134,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.799,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.621887471290392e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2901617044082493
    },
    "sha256": "ee6f78bb6d7560e744b9c5ef33c27f3febbfe5b41feeae6f06b1079c236d5edf",
    "simhash": "1:31ed13fac6adc489",
    "word_count": 184
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:07:32.557624+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUDOLPH BERRY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe principal question on this appeal is whether defendant\u2019s fingerprints found at the scene of the crime provided sufficient evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt for the case to be submitted to the jury. The Court of Appeals, after fully and accurately giving the facts and after a full and sufficient consideration of appropriate precedents, concluded that the evidence was sufficient. For the reasons given in the Court of Appeals\u2019 opinion, its decision is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Reginald L. Watkins, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Adam Stein, Appellate Defender, by James H. Gold, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RUDOLPH BERRY\nNo. 508A82\n(Filed 11 January 1983)\nAppeal pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals which found no error in a trial at the 8 June 1981 Criminal Session of New HANOVER Superior Court, Judge Strickland presiding, at which defendant was found guilty of felonious breaking or entering and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by Reginald L. Watkins, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nAdam Stein, Appellate Defender, by James H. Gold, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant appellant.\n. 58 N.C. App. 355, 293 S.E. 2d 650 (1982)."
  },
  "file_name": "0463-01",
  "first_page_order": 491,
  "last_page_order": 491
}