{
  "id": 8552138,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER W. YOUNG, alias JAMES ROBINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Young",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7126SC725",
  "first_page": "237",
  "last_page": "238",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 237"
    }
  ],
  "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": [
    {
      "cite": "173 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562301
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 S.E. 2d 609",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 629",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631431
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0629-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 239,
    "char_count": 3138,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41401429195292855
    },
    "sha256": "57fbe9b50894f3d63c91a7d806526db40a89f2d0e9f1fcfd15f7e38e1fbf4993",
    "simhash": "1:1d53dc4244b79917",
    "word_count": 514
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER W. YOUNG, alias JAMES ROBINSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe defendant, through his court-appointed counsel, brings forward two assignments of error. Defendant\u2019s first argument is that the court erred in allowing the State to amend the warrant in the superior court and in failing to grant his motion to quash. \u201cUnder our practice, our courts have the authority to amend warrants defective in form and even in substance; provided the amended warrant does not change the nature of the offense intended to be charged in the original warrant.\u201d Carson v. Doggett and Ward v. Doggett, 231 N.C. 629, 58 S.E. 2d 609. We hold that the court did not err in allowing the amendments to the warrant.\nDefendant also assigns as error the fact that he received greater punishment in the superior court than in the district court. For the reasons stated in State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E. 2d 897, this assignment of error is overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorneys William Lewis Sauls and Christine A. Witcover for the State.",
      "Lacy W. Blue for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROGER W. YOUNG, alias JAMES ROBINSON\nNo. 7126SC725\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\n1. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 12; Larceny \u00a7 4 \u2014 larceny prosecution \u2014 amendment of warrant\nIn a prosecution on a warrant charging defendant with the larceny of two dresses valued at $155 from Belk Brothers Company, it was proper for the State to amend the warrant by inserting the words \u201ca corporation\u201d immediately following the words \u201cBelk Brothers Company\u201d and by inserting the word \u201cfelonious\u201d between the words \u201cthe intent.\u201d\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 increased punishment in superior court \u2014 original trial in district court\nDefendant\u2019s constitutional rights were not violated when he received greater punishment in the superior court than in the district court..\nAppeal by defendant from McLean, Judge, 9 August 1971 Schedule \u201cB\u201d Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Meck-lenburg County.\nIn the district court the defendant was placed on trial on a warrant charging, in part material to this appeal, as follows:\n\u201c. . . [0]n or about the 1st day of March, 1971, the defendant named above did unlawfully, wilfully, steal, TAKE, AND CARRY AWAY TWO LADIES\u2019 DRESSES, OP THE VALUE OP $155.00, OP THE GOODS AND MERCHANDISE OP BELKS Brothers Company, 115 E. Trade Street with the intent TO APPROPRIATE SAME TO HIS OWN USE AND DEPRIVE THE LAWFUL OWNER OP SAME, IN VIOLATION OP G.S. 14-72 op North Carolina.\u201d\nThe defendant pleaded guilty and thereafter appealed from the judgment imposed in the district court.\nWhen the case was called for trial in the superior court, the solicitor for the State, with leave of court, caused the warrant to be amended by inserting the words \u201ca corporation\u201d immediately following the words \u201cBelks Brothers Company.\u201d The warrant was further amended by inserting the word \u201cfelonious\u201d immediately following the word \u201cthe\u201d and immediately before the word \u201cintent.\u201d The amendments were allowed over the objection of the defendant. The defendant thereupon entered a plea of not guilty and was found guilty. The defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorneys William Lewis Sauls and Christine A. Witcover for the State.\nLacy W. Blue for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0237-01",
  "first_page_order": 261,
  "last_page_order": 262
}