{
  "id": 2090178,
  "name": "STATE v. DANIEL SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1867-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "340",
  "last_page": "341",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "nominative",
      "cite": "1 Phil. 340"
    },
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "61 N.C. 340"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Mur., 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277181
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/5/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Mur., 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mur.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277181
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/5/0452-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 207,
    "char_count": 2498,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.415,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.095154496979982e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5666616084567092
    },
    "sha256": "8428a7c5680e8a652026bed35bf44f3f9b37771d7d3bc6285c4619366cc246a5",
    "simhash": "1:f08249a12eecb52b",
    "word_count": 460
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:16.220923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. DANIEL SMITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Battle, J.\nThis case comes before us upon a motion for a new trial, and also upon a motion to arrest the judgment.\nThe motion for a new trial has been very properly abandoned by the counsel in this court, for there is not the slightest pretext for it. The bill of exceptions shows that the trial was fair, and the prisoner properly convicted.\nUpon the motion in arrest the only error assigned is that the indictment describes the instrument with which the mortal blow was inflicted simply as \u201c a certain wooden stick of no value,\u201d without stating its length and thickness, so as to show that it was a deadly weapon. It was necessary to set forth the manner of the death, and that, it is contended, was sufficiently done by the statement that it was with a \u201c wooden stick.\" In support of this proposition approved precedents are relied upon. Thus \u201c an iron poker \u201d and a \u201c certain stone are given as examples of the description of the instruments by which death was caused. See Wharton\u2019s Precedents at pages 51 and 71. In State v. Owen, 1 Mur., 452, an indictment describing the instrument of death as \u201c a stick of no value \u201d was not noticed as an objection either by the counsel or the court. The case is of greater authority, because the counsel for the prisoner, who was a very able criminal lawyer, rested his motion for an arrest of the judgment upon a point of great doubt, and one which has been since settled against him by statute. Both the counsel and the court would have been relieved from their difficulty had the description of the stick been deemed insufficient.\nThe motion in arrest, as well as that for a new trial, must bei overruled, and, as we discover no error in the record, it must be so certified as the law directs.\nPer Curiam. There is no error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Battle, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moore, for the appellant.",
      "Attorney General, for the State."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. DANIEL SMITH.\nA stick with which the mortal blow was given may well be described in. an indictment for murder as \u201ca certain stick of no value.\u201d\n(State v. Owen, 1 Mur., 452, cited and approved.)\nMurder, tried before Buxton, J., at the Spring Term, 1867, of the Superior Court of Burke.\nNo statement of the facts of the case is necessary.\nUnder the charge of the court the jury found a verdict of Guilty, and the defendant appealed.\nMoore, for the appellant.\nAttorney General, for the State.\nThe form of the indictment is sustained by Wharton\u2019s Prec., pp. 51 and 71; 3 Chit. C. L., 761; Arch. Cr. PL, 314 and 395. See also Given s case, 1 Mur., 452; 1 Russ. Cr., 466; Roscoe, 706; 1 East. P. G, 341; 2 Hale P. G, 185. '"
  },
  "file_name": "0340-01",
  "first_page_order": 350,
  "last_page_order": 351
}