{
  "id": 1955285,
  "name": "THE STATE v. GEORGE QUEEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Queen",
  "decision_date": "1871-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "464",
  "last_page": "465",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 N.C. 464"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 156,
    "char_count": 1982,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.423,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.60167783687625e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2888388473613713
    },
    "sha256": "dde2e1f849cbb755bef4ab3073028c8b9bb9e4178457d10c4a965b7fb8ba3d3c",
    "simhash": "1:32f753733f9b9c8d",
    "word_count": 326
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:56.423501+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. GEORGE QUEEN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Boyden, J.\nIf the defendant, Newton, the record of whose .\u25a0submission was admitted, had been present at the trial he \u25a0would not have been a competent witness, for or against his co-defendant. Vide Bruner\u2019s case at this term, ante. How ithen can this record between other parties made in the absence .of the defendant be evidence for any purpose?\nIt is admitted by the Attorney General, that the record is mot competent evidence tending to establish the guilt of the defendant; but it is urged that it is still evidence tending to (Corroborate the testimony of the witness attempted to be impeached.\nThe Court is wholly unable to perceive this tendency, and the Attorney General, in his argument, failed to explain in what manner the record could tend to corroborate the impeached witness. The admission of the record for the purpose \u25a0alleged, would be establishing a principle to the competency of evidence heretofore unheard of.\n'There was error.\nBek Curiam. Venire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Boyden, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General for the State.",
      "Bragg <& Strong and Young for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. GEORGE QUEEN.\nWhere two are jointly indicted for a forcible trespass, and one of the defendants submits upon whom no judgment is pronounced, it is incompetent to introduce the record of his submission in a trial against his co-defendant, as evidence confirmatory of the testimony of the prosecutrix.\nState v. Brunei\u2022, 65 N. C., post cited and approved.\nIndictment for a forcible trespass tried before Logan, -/., at Spring Term, 1871, of Cleaveland Superior Court.\nThe defendant and one Newton were jointly indicted, and at a former term of the Court, the latter came into Court, and submitted.\nThe Solicitor for the State, with the view of confirming the testimony of the prosecutrix whose evidence had been impeached, introduced the record o\u00ed the submission o\u00ed Newton upon whom no judgment had been prayed, but was discharged upon payment of cost, to which defendant excepted. Verdict guilty. Judgment and appeal.\nAttorney General for the State.\nBragg <& Strong and Young for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0464-01",
  "first_page_order": 474,
  "last_page_order": 475
}