{
  "id": 8555500,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS HAWKINS, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hawkins",
  "decision_date": "1973-10-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 7310SC593",
  "first_page": "674",
  "last_page": "675",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 674"
    }
  ],
  "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": "130 S.E. 2d 857",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561201
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "501"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 536",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 N.C. 449",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568938
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/270/0449-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 4225,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.815132191357719e-08,
      "percentile": 0.45775081867707346
    },
    "sha256": "0244e704ccd76f1718ce937702a3bf65c2da0564cdda74cb3adf5cd6d9ec2a62",
    "simhash": "1:03f11de695c1e52e",
    "word_count": 738
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS HAWKINS, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\n\u25a0 The warrant upon which defendant was tried placed the time of the offense as \u201con or about the 19 day of June, 19_\u201d The failure to insert the year is defendant\u2019s only assignment of \u00e9rror. Defendant cites State v. Roberts, 270 N.C. 449, 154 S.E. 2d 536 (1967), where the Court said: \u201cThe indictment here alleges that the offense was committed \u2018on the 26th day of April, A.D. I96___.\u2019 We do not approve of such careless pleading.\u201d Id. at 450. (Emphasis added.) Nor do we. We note, however; that the defendant in that case was not granted a new trial on that basis. Additionally, in the case before us, the officer who. .signed the\" complaint for the warrant before the magistrate swore to the information in the complaint on 19 June 1971. Also the warrant for arrest was executed by the magistrate on 19 June 1971. The sheriff certified that he received the \u201csummons\u201d on 19 June 1971 and that it was executed on 19 June 1971. W\u00e9 think there can be no doubt but that the offense occurred \u201con or about the 19 day of June, 1971.\u201d Defendant\u2019s position that the statute of limitations could have run is not well taken,\nThe warrant charged all the elements of the offense: driving a vehicle, upon a highway within the State, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G.S. 20-138.\n\u201cAll that is required in a warrant or bill of indictment since the adoption of G.S. 15-153 is that it be sufficient in form to express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner, and to contain sufficient matter to enable the court to proceed to judgment and thus bar another prosecution for the same offense.\u201d State v. Anderson, 259 N.C. 499, 501, 130 S.E. 2d 857 (1963).\nNor can we agree with defendant that time is of the essence in this situation. He entered his plea of not guilty; heard the evidence for the State, which included evidence that the offense occurred on 19 June 1971; took the stand in his own behalf; and not until the jury verdict of guilty was in did he move in arrest of judgment. We think the provisions of G.S. 15-155 are applicable:\n\u201cNo judgment upon any indictment for felony or misdemeanor, whether after verdict, or by confession, or otherwise, shall be stayed or reversed for the want of the averment of any matter unnecessary to be proved, nor for omission of the words \u2018as appears by the record,\u2019 or of the words \u2018with force and arms,\u2019 nor for the insertion of the words \u2018against the form of the statutes\u2019 instead of the words \u2018against the form of the statute,\u2019 or vice versa; nor for omission of the words \u2018against the form of the statute\u2019 or \u2018against the form of the statutes,\u2019 nor for omitting to state the time at which the offense was committed in any case where time is not of the essence of the offense, nor for stating the time imperfectly, nor for stating the offense to have been committed on a day subsequent to the finding of the indictment, or on an impossible day, or on a day that never happened; nor for want of a proper and perfect venue, when the court shall appear by the indictment to have had jurisdiction of the offense.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nDefendant was completely aware of the charge against him and the date on which it occurred. He had a fair and impartial trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Briiey, for the State.",
      "Tharrington, Smith and Hargrove, by Roger W. Smith, for defendant appellant. :"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DENNIS HAWKINS, JR.\nNo. 7310SC593\n(Filed 24 October 1973)\nIndictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014 omission of year in which crime occurred\nWarrant charging defendant with driving while under the influence of intoxicants \u201con or about the 19 day of, June, 19.\u201d is.not fatally defective by reason of the omission of the year , in which the offense occurred. G.S. 15-156.\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, Judge, 26 March 1973 Session, Superior Court, Wake County.\nDefendant, on appeal from District Court, was convicted of driving an automobile upon the highways of this State'while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. On appeal defendant raises only one question and decision does not require a recitation of the facts.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Briiey, for the State.\nTharrington, Smith and Hargrove, by Roger W. Smith, for defendant appellant. :"
  },
  "file_name": "0674-01",
  "first_page_order": 698,
  "last_page_order": 699
}