{
  "id": 8523855,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ANTHONY LAMBERT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lambert",
  "decision_date": "1981-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8116SC216",
  "first_page": "799",
  "last_page": "802",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 799"
    }
  ],
  "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": "164 S.E. 2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 133",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553567
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/3/0133-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 S.E. 2d 653",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 N.C. App. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550121
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/34/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "270 S.E. 2d 534",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 N.C. App. 194",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8520335
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/49/0194-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 S.E. 2d 270",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 N.C. App. 600",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552113
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/40/0600-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 258,
    "char_count": 5685,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.805,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.205527233441023
    },
    "sha256": "3cc24ad662f1d455568273504fb472629032eac41dd8a8a3ca688cc66667a078",
    "simhash": "1:bf1abee95a8b4a2e",
    "word_count": 926
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:41.579477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hill and Whichard concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ANTHONY LAMBERT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe sole question presented by this appeal is whether the superior court erred in dismissing the proceeding against defendant.\nThe offense of willful non-support of one\u2019s illegitimate child, G.S. \u00a7 49-2, involves the following two issues: (1) Is defendant the parent of the illegitimate minor child in question? and (2) If so, has defendant willfully neglected or refused to support and maintain such illegitimate child? State v. Soloman, 40 N.C. App. 600, 253 S.E. 2d 270 (1979). Even though defendant may be found not guilty of willfully neglecting or refusing to support the illegitimate child, he may nevertheless appeal an adverse finding and conclusion that he is the parent of such illegitimate child. G.S. \u00a7 49-7. State v. Brown, 49 N.C. App. 194, 270 S.E. 2d 534 (1980); State v. Garner, 34 N.C. App. 498, 238 S.E. 2d 653 (1977).\nIn the present case, the district court found defendant to be the father of the illegitimate child, but found defendant not guilty of willfully neglecting or refusing to support the illegitimate child. Defendant appealed to the superior court from the district court\u2019s finding and conclusion that he was the father of the illegitimate child. Obviously defendant did not appeal from the finding that he was not guilty of willful non-support.\nThe jurisdiction of the superior court, therefore, was to give defendant a trial de novo on the issue of paternity. G.S. \u00a7\u00a7 7A-271, 49-2, 49-7; State v. Coffey, 3 N.C. App. 133, 164 S.E. 2d 39 (1968). Under the circumstances here presented, the superior court had no jurisdiction to make any order with respect to whether defendant had willfully neglected or refused to support the illegitimate child. It did have, however, authority to entertain and rule on any pre-trial motion with respect to the issue of paternity. Defendant in his pre-trial \u201cmotion to dismiss\u201d stated that the motion was on the grounds that \u201c[t]he defendant previously has been charged with the same offense in the [district court] based upon the same conduct, which trial ended in the acquittal of the defendant.\u201d Clearly, defendant\u2019s pre-trial motion is one to dismiss pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 15A-954(a)(5) on the grounds that \u201c[t]he defendant has previously been placed in jeopardy of the same offense.\u201d While the comments of the judge of the superior court as set out in the record indicate that the judge was treating defendant\u2019s motion as one to withdraw the appeal from the district court, the two orders entered by the superior court clearly dismiss the \u201ccharges and proceedings\u201d against defendant. In substance, the court allowed defendant\u2019s pre-trial motion. This was error. Obviously, defendant had not been acquitted of the part of the charge against him that he was the father of the illegitimate child. If defendant had not appealed from the judgment of the district court declaring him to be the father of the illegitimate child, that judgment would stand and could serve as the basis for future prosecution of defendant under G.S. \u00a7 49-2 for subsequent conduct constituting willful non-support of the illegitimate child. State v. Coffey, supra.\nFor the reasons stated, the two orders dated 5 January 1981 dismissing the \u201ccharges and proceedings\u201d against defendant are reversed and the cause is remanded to the superior court for a trial de novo on the issue of paternity, unless defendant chooses to make a motion to have the appeal from the district court on that issue voluntarily dismissed or withdrawn.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Hill and Whichard concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Steven F. Bryant, for the State.",
      "Lee and Lee, by J. Stanley Carmical, for the defendant ap-pellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT ANTHONY LAMBERT\nNo. 8116SC216\n(Filed 15 September 1981)\nBastards \u00a7 9.1\u2014 willful failure to support illegitimate child \u2014 finding of paternity but no willful failure \u2014appeal to superior court \u2014 erroneous dismissal of case\nWhere defendant was charged with willful nonsupport of his illegitimate child, the district court found that defendant was the father of the illegitimate child but that defendant was not guilty of willful nonsupport, and defendant appealed to the superior court from the district court\u2019s finding of paternity, the jurisdiction of the superior court was to give defendant a trial de novo on the issue of paternity, and the superior court erred in dismissing the \u201ccharges and proceedings\u201d against defendant on the ground that defendant had been acquitted in the district court, since defendant had not been acquitted on the issue of paternity. G.S. 49-7.\nAPPEAL by the State from Brewer, Judge. Orders entered 5 January 1981 in Superior Court, ROBESON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 September 1981.\nDefendant was charged with willful non-support of his illegitimate child, a violation of G.S. \u00a7 49-2. After trial in the district court, that court found and concluded that defendant was the father of the illegitimate child, but found defendant not guilty of willful non-support, and entered judgment accordingly on 12 December 1980. Defendant appealed to the superior court \u201cas to being found by the Court to be the father of the child\u201d and thereafter, on 5 January 1980, filed a pre-trial \u201cmotion to dismiss\u201d in the superior court, alleging as \u201cgrounds\u201d that defendant had previously been charged with the same offense in the district court based on the same conduct, and the trial in the district court had ended in acquittal. After a hearing, the superior court entered two orders allowing defendant\u2019s motion and dismissing \u201cthe charges and proceedings\u201d against defendant. The State appealed pursuant to G.S. \u00a7 15A-1445.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Steven F. Bryant, for the State.\nLee and Lee, by J. Stanley Carmical, for the defendant ap-pellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0799-01",
  "first_page_order": 827,
  "last_page_order": 830
}
