{
  "id": 8552243,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FREDDIE FRANKLIN STOKES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stokes",
  "decision_date": "1970-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 704SC665",
  "first_page": "176",
  "last_page": "178",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 176"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 2719,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.552,
    "sha256": "0328aa3d1eb799bf7357b6c07eebc7ea4c32029e3e1081649b52f75965652a2a",
    "simhash": "1:d53302724480afce",
    "word_count": 451
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FREDDIE FRANKLIN STOKES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendant moves this Court in arrest of judgment upon the grounds that the warrant does not charge defendant \u2018with an offense. If there is a fatal defect in the warrant or bill of indictment it should be the subject of a motion to quash before pleading, or the subject of a motion in arrest of judgment after a verdict.\nG.S. 18-4 provides that it shall be unlawful to have or possess any liquor or property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violation of G.S. Chap. 18, Article 1. In this ease defendant is charged with violating this statute as it pertains to possessing property designed for the manufacture of liquor. Although the warrant does not appear to be artfully drawn, it adequately charges defendant with the offense under G.S. 18-4 of possession of property designed for the manufacture of liquor intended for use in violation of G.S. Chap. 18, Article 1.\nDefendant assigns as error several portions of the judge\u2019s charge to the jury. Without encumbering these reports with a seriatim discussion of these assignments of error, in our opinion the fullness, the warmth, and the vigor of the trial judge\u2019s recapitulation of the State\u2019s evidence and the State\u2019s contentions prejudicially influenced the jury against defendant and entitles him to a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Sauls, for the State.",
      "Ray B. Brady and Alfonso Lloyd, by Ray B. Brady for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FREDDIE FRANKLIN STOKES\nNo. 704SC665\n(Filed 16 December 1970)\n1. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14; Criminal Law \u00a7 127\u2014 quashal of indictment\u2014 arrest of judgment\nA fatal defect in the warrant or bill of indictment should be the subject of a motion to quash before pleading, or the subject of a motion in arrest of judgment after a verdict.\n2. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9\u2014 possession of distillery \u2014 sufficiency of warrant\nWarrant adequately charged defendant with possession of property designed for the manufacture of liquor. G.S. 18-4.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 168\u2014 prejudicial error in instructions\nTrial court\u2019s recapitulation of the State\u2019s evidence and contentions prejudiced the defendant by their fullness, warmth, and vigor; and defendant is thereby entitled to a new trial.\nOn certiorari to review trial before Burgwyn, Judge of the Superior Court, 28 April 1969 Session, Sampson Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with possession of two distilleries and 1400 gallons of mash for the purpose of manufacturing liquor in violation of G.S. Chapter 18, Art. 1. He was found guilty in Sampson County Court and appealed to the Superior Court. Upon trial de novo in Superior Court he was again found guilty.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Staff Attorney Sauls, for the State.\nRay B. Brady and Alfonso Lloyd, by Ray B. Brady for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0176-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 202
}