{
  "id": 4723698,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID MICHAEL REILLY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reilly",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 656A84",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "500",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "313 N.C. 499"
    }
  ],
  "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": "321 S.E. 2d 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N.C. App. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523647
      ],
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/71/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2538,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1198795792759883e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5731890160391591
    },
    "sha256": "8224ac51a6d2f544c01b58628f597b4fcb4bc7cbcc1ee0cb58cc403a7b913aa7",
    "simhash": "1:2cdd61b9662fedcb",
    "word_count": 411
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:31.098159+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID MICHAEL REILLY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nDefendant brought forward three questions to the Court of Appeals: (1) Was the evidence sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the question of defendant\u2019s guilt? (2) Did the trial court err in failing to give an instruction on how the jury should consider certain fingerprint evidence? (3) Did the trial court err in permitting certain questions relating to religious affiliation on cross-examination of defendant\u2019s alibi witnesses? Defendant attempts to bring forward these same three questions to this Court in his brief filed here.\nThe dissent in the Court of Appeals disagreed only with the majority\u2019s treatment of the second question presented to that court. Defendant did not petition this Court for discretionary review of the other questions. Defendant\u2019s appeal is grounded solely on the dissent in the Court of Appeals. Therefore, on this appeal, only the second question is properly before us for review, notwithstanding defendant\u2019s attempt to bring forward the first and third questions in his brief to this Court. App. R. 16(b).\nNonetheless, since the first question involves the sufficiency of the evidence on the question of guilt, we have, \u201cto prevent manifest injustice\u201d pursuant to App. R. 2, considered it. We have not considered the third question. The decision of the Court of Appeals on the third question stands unreviewed. On the first and second questions the decision of the Court of Appeals is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Newton G. Pritchett, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the state.",
      "Scott E. Jarvis for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID MICHAEL REILLY\nNo. 656A84\n(Filed 7 May 1985)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 146\u2014 appeal based on dissent in Court of Appeals \u2014 question presented\nWhere defendant\u2019s appeal was grounded solely on a dissent in the Court of Appeals, the dissent disagreed only with the majority\u2019s treatment of the second question presented to that court, and defendant did not petition the Supreme Court for discretionary review of the other questions, only the second question was properly before the Supreme Court for review.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30\u00cd2) by defendant from a decision of the Court of Appeals, one judge dissenting, in which a majority of the panel found no error in defendant\u2019s convictions of felonious breaking and felonious larceny at the 15 April 1983 Criminal Session of Superior Court in WATAUGA County, Judge Friday presiding. The Court of Appeals\u2019 decision is reported at 71 N.C. App. 1, 321 S.E. 2d 564 (1984).\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Newton G. Pritchett, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the state.\nScott E. Jarvis for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 529,
  "last_page_order": 530
}