{
  "id": 8547434,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK BLEDSOE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bledsoe",
  "decision_date": "1969-09-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 6922SC431",
  "first_page": "195",
  "last_page": "197",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 195"
    }
  ],
  "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": "39 S.E. 2d 740",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 601",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623074
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0601-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S.E. 2d 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "237 N.C. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/237/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "135 S.E. 2d 584",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 N.C. 606",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574926
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/261/0606-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "691"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616840
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "241"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0237-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 5294,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3567014910907933
    },
    "sha256": "e6cdebdb29c424826d604b1a8dda195b6e68e4b1d246249fd39a5122b80bb2f9",
    "simhash": "1:6368077617c89989",
    "word_count": 873
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:50.917320+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Campbell and Geai-iam, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK BLEDSOE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, J.\nAppellant\u2019s sole assignment of error is that the trial court in its charge to the jury defined a person as being under the influence of intoxicating liquor \u201cwhen he has consumed a sufficient quantity of some alcoholic beverage to cause him to lose the normal control of his bodily or mental qualities, either or both, to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of his bodily or mental faculties, either or both.\u201d (Emphasis added.) Appellant contends that the judge\u2019s use of the word \u201cqualities\u201d instead of the word \u201cfaculties\u201d in the above quoted portion of the charge misled the jury to his prejudice and thereby entitled him to a new trial. We do not agree.\nDenny, J. (later C.J.), speaking for the Court in the frequently cited case of State v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 241, 37 S.E. 2d 688, 691, gave the approved definition as follows:\n\u201cAnd a person is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic drugs, within the meaning and intent of the statute, when he has drunk a sufficient quantity of intoxicating beverage or taken a sufficient amount of narcotic drugs, to cause him to lose the normal control of his bodily or mental faculties, or both, to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of either or both of these faculties.\u201d\nWhile our Supreme Court has stated that the definition contained in the Carroll case is preferred and any substantial deviation therefrom is not approved, State v. Ellis, 261 N.C. 606, 135 S.E. 2d 584, certain minor variations from the approved language have been held not sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial. State v. Ellis, supra (use of the words \u201ca sufficient quantity of some intoxicating liquor or beverage, be it beer, wine or whiskey, be it a spoonful or a quart,\u201d held not sufficiently prejudicial to justify a new trial in light of evidence in the case); State v. Lee, 237 N.C. 263, 74 S.E. 2d 654 (use of the word \u201cperceptibly\u201d instead of the word \u201cappreciably\u201d held not sufficiently different in meaning and common understanding for the rule given in the Carroll case to have been misunderstood by the jury); State v. Bowen, 226 N.C. 601, 39 S.E. 2d 740 (use of the words \u201cmaterially impaired\u201d instead of the words \u201cappreciable impairment\u201d held not prejudicial error).\nIn the present case we do not think that the inadvertent use by the trial judge of the word \u201cqualities\u201d in place of the word \u201cfaculties\u201d at one point in the charge could have in any way misled the jury to defendant\u2019s prejudice. In the first place it should be noted that in the very same sentence the court required the jury to find an appreciable impairment of defendant\u2019s \u201cbodily or mental faculties, either or both,\u201d which are the very words approved in the Carroll case. Furthermore, some authorities have equated the word \u201cquality\u201d with the word \u201cfaculty\u201d when these words are used in the sense here employed. In Rodale, \u201cThe Synonym Finder\u201d (printing of March 1967), the word \u201cfaculty\u201d is defined as:\n\u201cAbility for a particular kind of action, inherent physical capability, capacity, power, endowment, attribute, qualification, property, virtue, quality,.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe same authority defines the word \u201cquality\u201d as:\n\u201cCharacteristic, attribute, property, trait, feature, character, . . . faculty, . . .\u201d (Emphasis added.)\n\u25a0 While, as our Supreme Court has admonished, adherence to the language approved in the Carroll case is to be preferred, the trial of cases in court has not been narrowed to the incantation of magic phrases, any variation from which will automatically require a new trial. In the light of the evidence in the present case we cannot conceive that the defendant could have been in anywise prejudiced by the slight deviation in the language employed by the trial judge or that the jury could have been misled thereby from applying correctly the rule laid down in the Carroll case.\nNo error.\nCampbell and Geai-iam, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen, for the State.",
      "Peter W. Hairston for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JACK BLEDSOE\nNo. 6922SC431\n(Filed 17 September 1969)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 129\u2014 driving under the influence \u2014 instructions \u2014 definition of \u201cunder the influence\u201d \u2014 use of word \u201cqualities\u201d\nIn this prosecution for driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, defendant was not prejudiced by an instruction which defined a person as being under the influence of intoxicating liquor when he has consumed a sufficient quantity of some alcoholic beverage to cause him to lose the normal control of his bodily or mental \u201cqualities,\u201d either or both, to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of his bodily or mental faculties, or both, although the use of the word \u201cfaculties\u201d rather than \u201cqualities\u201d is preferred.\nAppeal by defendant from McConnell, J., 21 April 1969 Session of Davie Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried on his plea of not guilty to a bill of indictment charging him with the crime of driving a motor vehicle upon the public highways of North Carolina while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The jury found defendant guilty, and from judgment imposed thereon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, Assistant Attorney General William W. Melvin, and Staff Attorney T. Buie Costen, for the State.\nPeter W. Hairston for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0195-01",
  "first_page_order": 219,
  "last_page_order": 221
}