{
  "id": 8546889,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMMIE LEWIS THOMPSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thompson",
  "decision_date": "1969-08-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 6926SC326",
  "first_page": "64",
  "last_page": "66",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 64"
    }
  ],
  "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": "114 S.E. 2d 659",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 N.C. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625871
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/252/0783-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 901",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626903
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0658-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 282,
    "char_count": 4519,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.547,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7986919471961e-07,
      "percentile": 0.836658237603814
    },
    "sha256": "656d10d4cbffe948ab0a9a31ae80666c0a1a6ae2e24b08dcbbbfcc393a689f8d",
    "simhash": "1:97a72a3514c99c4d",
    "word_count": 747
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:50.917320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Beitt, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMMIE LEWIS THOMPSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, J.\nDefendant, as he had a right to do, filed in this Court a written motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the warrant under which he was tried, convicted, and sentenced is fatally defective in that it fails to allege sufficiently that the owner of the property allegedly stolen is either a natural person or a legal entity capable of owning property. The warrant charges theft of three dresses from \u201cBelk\u2019s Department Store, 113 E. Trade Street.\u201d The record is silent as to whether the owner of the property is, in fact, a corporation, a sole proprietorship, or a partnership.\nDefendant relies on State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 111 S.E. 2d 901. There defendant was charged with embezzlement from \u201cThe Chuck Wagon.\u201d Parker, J. (now C.J.) discussed the two lines of authorities in respect to the necessity of allegation in the warrant or indictment in a prosecution for \u201clarceny or embezzlement\u201d:\n\u201cOne line of authorities holds to the proposition that, in a prosecution for larceny or embezzlement, it is necessary to allege in the indictment that the owner of the property, if not a natural person, is a corporation or otherwise a legal entity capable of owning property. Another line of authorities is cited, where in some jurisdictions the foregoing rule has been relaxed, and which holds that where the name of the company alleged in the indictment imports an association or a corporation capable of owning property as a legal entity, it is not necessary to allege specifically that it is a corporation. See 18 Am. Jur., Section 45.\u201d\nThe Court noted the statutory requirement that the corporate name must contain the word \u201ccorporation,\u201d \u201cincorporated,\u201d \u201climited,\u201d or \u201ccompany,\u201d or an abbreviation of one of these words. G.S. 55-12. The only change in the requirement of the 1955 Business Corporation Act and the prior Act was the addition of the word \u201climited.\u201d (See \u00a7 55-2 former Chapter 55, General Statutes of North Carolina). In the Thornton case, the court held that there was no allegation that \u201cThe Chuck Wagon\u201d is a corporation and the words \u201cThe Chuck Wagon\u201d do not import a corporation; and, therefore, the indictment was fatally defective.\nIn the later case of State v. Biller, 252 N.C. 783, 114 S.E. 2d 659, the defendants were prosecuted under warrants charging theft of property of \u201cU-Wash-It, in Chapel Hill.\u201d The -defendant moved in the Supreme Court in arrest of judgment for failure of the warrant to allege ownership in a natural person or legal entity capable of owning property. The Court, on authority of State v. Thornton, supra, held the warrant to be fatally defective and arrested judgment.\nHere, we cannot say that \u201cBelk\u2019s Department Store\u201d imports a corporation, there is no allegation that it is a corporation, nor is there any allegation that it is a proprietorship or a partnership. The name \u201cBelk\u2019s Department Store\u201d certainly does not suggest a natural person. As in Thornton and Biller, we are compelled to hold the warrant is fatally defective. The State, of course, if it so desires, may proceed against the defendant upon a sufficient warrant.\nJudgment arrested.\nMallard, C.J., and Beitt, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney Richard N. League for the State.",
      "Peter H. Gems for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SAMMIE LEWIS THOMPSON\nNo. 6926SC326\n(Filed 27 August 1969)\nLarceny \u00a7 4; Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 11\u2014 sufficiency of warrant \u2014 ownership of stolen property \u2014 \u201cBelt\u2019s Department Store\u201d\nA warrant for the larceny of property from \u201cB\u00e9lk\u2019s Department Store\u201d is fatally defective in failing to allege sufficiently that the owner of the property allegedly stolen is either a natural person or a legal entity capable of owning property.\nAppeal by defendant from Thornburg, J., 3 February 1969 Schedule \u201cD\u201d Criminal Session, Mecslenburg Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged with the larceny of three dresses of the value of $56.00 from \u201cBelle\u2019s Department Store\u201d in Charlotte. He was tried in the city recorder\u2019s court, found guilty, and appealed. On his trial in the superior court, he was represented by counsel, but the record is silent as to whether counsel was privately retained or court appointed. He entered a plea of not guilty. From a verdict of guilty and judgment entered thereon, he appealed. Upon a finding of defendant\u2019s indigency, counsel was appointed to perfect his appeal, and Mecklenburg County was ordered to pay the costs of preparation of transcript and printing the record on appeal and brief.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney Richard N. League for the State.\nPeter H. Gems for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0064-01",
  "first_page_order": 88,
  "last_page_order": 90
}