{
  "id": 4752958,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFERY LEVON EASON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Eason",
  "decision_date": "1984-11-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 232A84",
  "first_page": "320",
  "last_page": "322",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "312 N.C. 320"
    }
  ],
  "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": "313 S.E. 2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N.C. App. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526588
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/67/0460-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-180",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1943,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "repealed 1977"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 892",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628030
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0029-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575744
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 53",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8613997
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0721-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 S.E. 2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "224",
          "parenthetical": "Becton, J., dissenting"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N.C. App. 460",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8526588
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "465"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/67/0460-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 271,
    "char_count": 4066,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.81,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.88783508953384e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49963318324736306
    },
    "sha256": "0759a7e6bea07be51ea4f881440f4a71f9c1bd3284e90e0c8aa876156568c274",
    "simhash": "1:2f4b70202637a1c5",
    "word_count": 685
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:57.145273+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFERY LEVON EASON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThe Court of Appeals correctly held that the trial court did not commit error when the trial judge gave no summary of defendant\u2019s evidence while instructing the jury pursuant to G.S. 15A-1232. Defendant argues that State v. Ardrey, 232 N.C. 721, 62 S.E. 2d 53 (1950) supports his argument that litigants in North Carolina have traditionally been granted relief when the trial court fails to summarize any evidence in violation of G.S. 15A-1232. Additionally, the defendant and the dissent from the Court of Appeals\u2019 majority opinion cite State v. Best, 265 N.C. 477, 144 S.E. 2d 416 (1965) for the proposition that \u201c[o]nly when the evidence is simple and direct and without equivocation and complication is the failure to summarize any evidence harmless error.\u201d 67 N.C. App. at 465, 313 S.E. 2d at 224 (Becton, J., dissenting).\nWe cannot uncritically adhere to the holding in Best and perpetuate a narrow exception to a rule that did not exist then nor at present. In conducting a keen re-examination of Best, we find that the statute in effect at that time, G.S. 1-180 (1953) (repealed 1977), stated that the trial judge \u201cshall not be required to state such evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto;. . . .\u201d This language is generally equivalent to the current version of the statute contained in G.S. 15A-1232 (1983) that states the judge \u201cis not required to state the evidence except to the extent necessary to explain the application of the law to the evidence.\u201d\nIt appears, however, that the court in Best carved an exception to this statute by quoting from and relying upon a case, Morris v. Tate, 230 N.C. 29, 51 S.E. 2d 892 (1949), decided pursuant to an earlier version of the same statute, which required the judge to \u201cstate in a plain and correct manner the evidence given in the case and declare and explain the law arising thereon.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-180 (1943) (repealed 1977). This same statute was also in effect when Ardrey was decided. Obviously, the 1943 statute is in sharp contrast to both the statute in effect at the time Best was decided and the current version of the same statute.\nIt seems, therefore, that the narrow exception to G.S. 1-180 espoused in Morris v. Tate was misapplied in Best, since the 1943 statute was amended in 1951 and no longer required a trial judge to state or explain the evidence given in the case, unless such an explanation was necessary to an application of the law. Essentially, what was once the exception had since been swallowed up by the general rule.\nAccordingly, we agree with the majority of the Court of Appeals that the trial judge did not commit plain error in failing to summarize the defendant\u2019s evidence. Neither G.S. 15A-1232 nor the cases previously cited command a different result. The decision of the Court of Appeals is\nAffirmed.\n. This case held that the judge can dispense with a statement of evidence when the facts are simple, thus allowing the judge to bypass the statutory mandate in effect at that time which required a judge to give a plain and correct statement of the evidence presented in the case.\n. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1-180 (1953).\n. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 15A-1232 (1983).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.",
      "Adam Stein, Appellate Defender, by David W. Dorey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEFFERY LEVON EASON\nNo. 232A84\n(Filed 6 November 1984)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 113.1\u2014 instructions \u2014 failure to summarize defendant\u2019s evidence\nThe trial court did not commit error in failing to summarize defendant\u2019s evidence while instructing the jury pursuant to G.S. 15A-1232.\nDefendant appeals as a matter of right pursuant to G.S. 7A-30(2) from a decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 67 N.C. App. 460, 313 S.E. 2d 221 (1984), affirming the judgment entered by Brewer, J., at the 31 January 1983 Criminal Session of Superior Court, JOHNSTON County, finding defendant guilty of first degree burglary.\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by William B. Ray, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellee.\nAdam Stein, Appellate Defender, by David W. Dorey, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0320-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 352
}