{
  "id": 8551079,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARTHUR RAWLINGS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rawlings",
  "decision_date": "1973-06-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 738SC82",
  "first_page": "476",
  "last_page": "477",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 476"
    }
  ],
  "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": "31 L.Ed. 2d 794",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 S.Ct. 1492",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "405 U.S. 1064",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        11782562,
        11782405,
        11782789,
        11782633,
        11782287,
        11782482,
        11782354,
        11782709,
        11782234
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/405/1064-06",
        "/us/405/1064-04",
        "/us/405/1064-09",
        "/us/405/1064-07",
        "/us/405/1064-02",
        "/us/405/1064-05",
        "/us/405/1064-03",
        "/us/405/1064-08",
        "/us/405/1064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 113",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 620",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571813,
        8571775
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0620-02",
        "/nc/279/0620-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 2d 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547982
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 274",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 264",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558536
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "269"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0264-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 292,
    "char_count": 4258,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37937926110750086
    },
    "sha256": "6b5ce186ea892f658d08b90585463c692788377034c5c1eb17591128db39029d",
    "simhash": "1:6810c06bfb123fe6",
    "word_count": 716
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARTHUR RAWLINGS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error is directed to the failure of the court to grant his motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. It appears from the record that the offenses charged occurred on 15 February 1972, and the warrant for defendant\u2019s arrest was not issued until 12 April 1972. Without question, a purposeful delay in issuing a warrant can place .a defendant at a special disadvantage. Without knowledge of Impending service of a warrant, an innocent person would have ?no reason to fix dates and time and places in his memory. Memories dim with the passage of time. Frequently witnesses are not available. \u201cThe burden is on an accused who asserts the denial of his right to a speedy trial to show that the delay was due to the neglect or willfulness of the prosecution.\u201d State v. Johnson, 275 N.C. 264, 269, 167 S.E. 2d 274 (1969). Here defendant has not shown that the delay of slightly less than two months was prejudicial. He has not shown that the delay was purposeful and due to the neglect or willfulness of the State. This passage of time standing alone shows no prejudice. See State v. Wrenn, 12 N.C. App. 146, 182 S.E. 2d 600 (1971), appeal dismissed, 279 N.C. 620, 184 S.E. 2d 113 (1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1064, 92 S.Ct. 1492, 31 L.Ed. 2d 794 (1972).\nAlso included in assignment of error No. 1, albeit erroneously, is defendant\u2019s contention that the court erred in denying his motion to require the State to furnish and make available to him a witness to the alleged offense. Defendant cites no authority for this position. Suffice to say that the record clearly discloses that defendant was aware of the witness\u2019s participation in the matter very shortly after defendant was arrested \u2014 at his trial in District Court. The power of subpoena was available to defendant but, as to this witness, not used. This assignment of error is overruled in its entirety.\nAkin to the foregoing contention is the contention contained in assignment of error No. 4 \u2014 that the court should have granted defendant\u2019s motion for dismissal based on the State\u2019s failure to produce John (T-Bone) Kornegay as a witness. Mr. Kornegay was witness to the transaction. Again, defendant cites no authority. The assignment of error is totally without merit and is overruled.\nAssignment of error No. 2 groups seven exceptions to the allowing of evidence defendant deems incompetent. Assuming arguendo that error occurred in one or more of the rulings, the error was not sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial.\nFinally defendant contends that nonsuit should have been granted as to the charge of the sale of non-tax-paid whiskey. Our review of the record discloses plenary evidence for submission of this charge to the jury.\nDefendant has had a fair and impartial trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Giles, for the State.",
      "Herbert B. Hulse for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARTHUR RAWLINGS\nNo. 738SC82\n(Filed 13 June 1973)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 30\u2014 two month delay \u2014 right to speedy trial\nTrial court properly refused to grant defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial where defendant did not show that a delay of two months between the offense and the issuance of a warrant for his arrest was prejudicial to him or was purposeful and due to the neglect or willfulness of the State.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 31\u2014 witnesses not produced by State \u2014 no error\nAssignments of error to the State\u2019s failure to make available , to defendant a witness to the alleged offense and to the State\u2019s failure to produce at trial a witness to the alleged offense are without merit.\n3. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 14\u2014 sale of non-tax-paid whiskey \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence was sufficient to submit to the jury the question of defendant\u2019s guilt of selling non-tax-paid whiskey.\nAppeal by defendant from Cowper, Judge, 24 July 1972 Session, Superior Court, Wayne County.\nDefendant was charged with possession and with sale of non-tax-paid whiskey. He entered a plea of not guilty to both charges. The jury found him guilty of the sale of non-tax-paid whiskey. From the judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Giles, for the State.\nHerbert B. Hulse for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0476-01",
  "first_page_order": 500,
  "last_page_order": 501
}