{
  "id": 4149623,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWIGHT McDOUGALD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McDougald",
  "decision_date": "2008-03-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 64A07",
  "first_page": "224",
  "last_page": "225",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "362 N.C. 224"
    }
  ],
  "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": "638 S.E.2d 546",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12637387
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/se2d/638/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N.C. App. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8371867
      ],
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/181/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 L. Ed. 2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3275967
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/547/0103-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 L. Ed. 2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3275967
      ],
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/547/0103-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1773,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.734,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39340536842109325
    },
    "sha256": "6006677de303ff868b299f6d48e66782206f543edc0e45d8c0ca67f3e526da7f",
    "simhash": "1:0d15653213bc86fb",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:47:03.529976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWIGHT McDOUGALD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nDefendant appeals to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals on the basis of a dissent. In light of the State\u2019s concession of error, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals as to the appealable issue of right i.e. whether it was appropriate to dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal on procedural grounds. The case is remanded to the Court of Appeals to determine if any error under Georgia v. Randolph, - U.S. -, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006) was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The remaining issues addressed by the Court of Appeals are not before this Court and its decision as to these issues remains undisturbed.\nREVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by John P Scherer II, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Irving Joyner for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DWIGHT McDOUGALD\nNo. 64A07\n(Filed 7 March 2008)\nSearch and Seizure\u2014 search of defendant\u2019s apartment\u2014 refusal of consent by defendant \u2014 consent by wife \u2014 harmlessness of error\nThe decision of the Court of Appeals in a prosecution for conspiracy to traffic in MDA is reversed and remanded for determination if any error under Georgia v. Randolph, \u2022\u2014 U.S.-, 164 L. Ed. 2d 208 (2006), in the search of defendant\u2019s apartment based upon his wife\u2019s consent after defendant refused consent was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nAppeal pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-30(2) from the decision of a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, 181 N.C. App. 41, 638 S.E.2d 546 (2007), finding no error in judgments entered 12 April 2005 by Judge Jerry Cash Martin in Superior Court, Guilford County. On 11 October 2007, the Supreme Court allowed defendant\u2019s petition for discretionary review as to an additional issue. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 February 2008.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by John P Scherer II, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nIrving Joyner for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0224-01",
  "first_page_order": 302,
  "last_page_order": 303
}