{ "id": 8555533, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH WINSTON HITCHCOCK", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hitchcock", "decision_date": "1969-05-28", "docket_number": "No. 6921SC178", "first_page": "676", "last_page": "678", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "4 N.C. App. 676" } ], "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": "70 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625348 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 403", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 196", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596496, 8596449 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0196-02", "/nc/240/0196-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565497 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S.E. 2d 223", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615840 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0424-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 S.E. 2d 85", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611078 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0446-01" ] }, { "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627331 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0599-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 314, "char_count": 4597, "ocr_confidence": 0.586, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.809691169799155e-08, "percentile": 0.49664826018814223 }, "sha256": "78c0f46308d074096e04c5387d06028a2c5c60a54b9879afea0c806bdacfa06b", "simhash": "1:af69768c67ea8492", "word_count": 808 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:38.610889+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Beitt and Paricer, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH WINSTON HITCHCOCK" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mallaed, C.J.\nNo exceptions appear in the record, and none were noted or taken by the defendant except under the assignments of error. Such exceptions are ineffectual since an assignment of error must be based on an exception duly noted. Darden v. Bone, 254 N.C. 599, 119 S.E. 2d 634; State v. Dilliard, 223 N.C. 446, 27 S.E. 2d 85. See also Rule 21 of the Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina. \u201cIt would require a tedious and time-consuming voyage of discovery for us to ascertain upon what the appellant is relying to show error, and our Rules and decisions do not require us to make any such voyage.\u201d Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E. 2d 223. In addition, Rule 19(a) of the Rules of Practice in this Court require that the charge of the trial court be included in the record on appeal in all cases \u201cwhere there is exception thereto.\u201d In the present ease, the charge of the trial court is not set forth in the record on appeal as required by the rules. The Attorney General on behalf of the State has made a motion to dismiss this appeal for failure to comply with the rules and the case is subject to such dismissal.\nApart from the foregoing, an appeal itself is an exception to the judgment which presents for review error appearing on the face of the record. London v. London, 271 N.C. 568, 157 S.E. 2d 90; State v. Ayscue, 240 N.C. 196, 81 S.E. 2d 403; State v. Williams, 235 N.C. 429, 70 S.E. 2d 1. We have carefully examined the record proper. The Superior Court had jurisdiction. The warrant charges in proper form a criminal offense. The verdict is in correct form and the sentence imposed is within the limits fixed by statute. In the absence of any prejudicial error of which this Court may or will take notice, the judgment below must be affirmed. State v. Williams, supra.\nNo error.\nBeitt and Paricer, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mallaed, C.J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.", "Badgett and Calaway by Richard G. Badgett for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH WINSTON HITCHCOCK\nNo. 6921SC178\n(Filed 28 May 1969)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 necessity for exceptions\nWhere no exceptions appear in the record, defendant\u2019s assignments of error are ineffectual since an assignment of error must be based on an exception duly noted.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 158, 163\u2014 exception to the charge \u2014 inclusion of charge in record\nThe charge of the trial court must be included in the record on appeal in all cases where there is exception thereto. Court of Appeals Rule No, 19(a).\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 appeal as exception to judgment\nAn appeal itself is an exception to the judgment which presents for review error appearing on the face of the record.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014 review of record proper\nWhere defendant\u2019s assignments of error are ineffectual and no error appears on the face of the record proper, the judgment below must be affirmed.\nAppeal by defendant from Bailey, J., 9 December 1968, Two-Week Criminal Session of Superior Court of Forsyth County.\nThe defendant was tried in the Municipal Court of Winston-Salem on a warrant which charged that he \u201cdid unlawfully and willfully drive a motor vehicle upon the public highway of N. C. . . . while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. . . .\u201d From a verdict of guilty and sentence imposed, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court. In Superior Court the defendant entered a plea of not guilty and trial was by jury. The evidence for the State tended to show that while being pursued by a deputy sheriff the car which the defendant was driving left the road at a high rate of speed and finally came to rest against a telephone pole; that the defendant could not stand up after getting out of the car; that there was a strong smell of alcohol on the defendant\u2019s breath; that the defendant\u2019s speech was unclear; and that the defendant could not walk without assistance. In the opinion of the arresting officer, the defendant \u201cwas under the influence of an intoxicating beverage to the extent that his mental and physical faculties were appreciably impaired.\u201d The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he had had only \u201ctwo beers\u201d on the day of the accident; that striking a \u201cchuck hole\u201d was the cause of the accident; and that his appearance was caused by the fact that he was \u201cstunned\u201d and \u201cdazed\u201d as a result of the accident. The jury found the defendant guilty as charged in the warrant.\nFrom the judgment imposing a prison sentence of thirty days the defendant appealed to the Court of Appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen for the State.\nBadgett and Calaway by Richard G. Badgett for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0676-01", "first_page_order": 696, "last_page_order": 698 }