{
  "id": 8550546,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN C. PREINE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Preine",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 753SC774",
  "first_page": "502",
  "last_page": "504",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 502"
    }
  ],
  "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": "201 S.E. 2d 582",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 464",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553544
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0464-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 15",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572279
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0227-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2534,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.561,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20589849060698134
    },
    "sha256": "f3f3e154ae238c9e1be08cb2284be3bd3e470ecd2a4fa9dee4701083ef7f5862",
    "simhash": "1:0f8ed1295f1f02ef",
    "word_count": 425
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN C. PREINE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nThe State assigns error to the trial court\u2019s granting the defendant\u2019s motion to quash the warrant.\nIn a criminal prosecution for a statutory offense, including the violation of a municipal ordinance, the warrant is sufficient if it charges each essential element of the offense in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner. State v. Dorsett and State v. Yow, 272 N.C. 227, 158 S.E. 2d 15 (1967).\nThe warrant states that the defendant \u201cdid unlawfully, wilfully, and engage in the operation and ownership of a massage parlor, doing business as the American Health Spa, which facility is covered and regulated under the provisions of Chapter 9 of the Code of the City of Havelock, N. C., without first having obtained regulated facility license from the Board of Commissioners of the City of Havelock, N. C., and which massage parlor is located within the Corporate limits of Havelock, N. C.\nThe offense charged here was committed against the peace and dignity of the State and in violation of law Code of the City of Havelock, N. C., Chapter 9-16; 9-1, 1-6(A).\u201d\nThe warrant is sufficient to give defendant notice of the charge against him, to enable him to prepare his defense, and to raise the bar of double jeopardy in the event he is again brought to trial for the same offense. State v. Ingram, 20 N.C. App. 464, 201 S.E. 2d 582 (1974).\nReversed.\nJudges Parker and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Edwin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.",
      "No brief filed for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN C. PREINE\nNo. 753SC774\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nObscenity; Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9 \u2014 operating massage parlor without license \u2014 sufficiency of warrant\nWarrant was sufficient to charge defendant with operating a massage parlor without a license in violation of the Code of the City of Havelock, and the trial court erred in quashing the'warrant.\nAppeal by the State from Rouse, Judge. Judgment entered 21 July 1975 in Superior Court, Craven County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 January 1976.\nDefendant was charged with operating a massage parlor without a license in violation of law Code of the City of Have-lock, Chapter 9-16; 9-1, 1-6 (A). Defendant Was fined $50 and given a suspended sentence by the District Court, but appealed the District Court\u2019s judgment to Superior Court.\nDefendant made a motion in' Superior Court to quash the warrant and the motion was .granted. The State appealed the Superior Court\u2019s judgment quashing the warrant to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Special Deputy Attorney General Edwin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.\nNo brief filed for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0502-01",
  "first_page_order": 530,
  "last_page_order": 532
}
