{
  "id": 8524181,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH MAJOR HOBSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hobson",
  "decision_date": "1984-10-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 8423SC42",
  "first_page": "619",
  "last_page": "621",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 N.C. App. 619"
    }
  ],
  "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": "181 S.E. 2d 186",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555514
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/11/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 S.E. 2d 204",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 280",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563077
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0280-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S.E. 2d 840",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "845"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568134
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1964,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "451"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S.E. 2d 530",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1944,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "530"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608861
      ],
      "year": 1944,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "531"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0530-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 S.E. 2d 783",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11308157
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/22/0502-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 891",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1935,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "891"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N.C. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602171
      ],
      "year": 1935,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "252"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0251-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 9",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "10"
        },
        {
          "page": "10"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628242
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "60"
        },
        {
          "page": "60"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1935,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N.C. 231",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601030
      ],
      "year": 1935,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0231-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.829,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.7439912033818204e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8321780536239758
    },
    "sha256": "fdae03220d359b993980b1b61bf82595acced3100f990ebaac7fa56026925dc4",
    "simhash": "1:d80d995e5aaf3232",
    "word_count": 899
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:14:59.534868+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH MAJOR HOBSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge.\nWe hold that the verdict returned by the jury was improper and must be set aside.\nDefendant was charged and tried under G.S. 49-2, which makes it a misdemeanor offense for \u201c[a]ny parent [to] willfully [neglect] or . . . [refuse] to support and maintain his or her illegitimate child. . . .\u201d For defendant to be found guilty of this criminal offense, two essential elements must be established: First, that the defendant is a parent of the illegitimate child in question; and second, that the defendant has willfully neglected or refused to support such child. State v. Coffey, 3 N.C. App. 133, 164 S.E. 2d 39 (1968). The begetting of an illegitimate child is not in itself a crime, State v. Tyson, 208 N.C. 231, 180 S.E. 85 (1935), and neither is the willful refusal to support the child of another. A jury verdict must unambiguously state that the defendant has been found guilty of a crime. It has therefore been held that a general verdict of \u201c[g]uilty\u201d or \u201c[gjuilty as charged\u201d is sufficient when a defendant is properly charged under G.S. 49-2. State v. Ellison, 230 N.C. 59, 60, 52 S.E. 2d 9, 10 (1949). However, \u201cwhen the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without specific reference to the charge, ... it is essential that the spelling be correct.\u201d State v. Lassiter, 208 N.C. 251, 252, 179 S.E. 891, 891 (1935). A finding of \u201c[gjuilty of willful non-support of illegitimate child\u201d is insufficient to sustain a verdict because it \u201cdoes not fix the paternity of the child.\u201d Ellison, 230 N.C. at 60, 52 S.E. 2d at 10; see also State v. Williams, 22 N.C. App. 502, 206 S.E. 2d 783 (1974). Similarly defective is a verdict of \u201c[gjuilty of failure to support and maintain his bastard child\u201d because it omits the element of willfulness. State v. Allen, 224 N.C. 530, 531, 31 S.E. 2d 530, 530 (1944).\nIn the present case, a warrant of arrest properly charged defendant with the willful failure to support his illegitimate child. However, the jury did not return a verdict of \u201cguilty\u201d or \u201cguilty as charged\u201d or \u201cguilty of willful non-support of his illegitimate child,\u201d but returned a verdict of \u201c[g]uilty of non-support of illegitimate child.\u201d This verdict neither alludes generally to the warrant nor uses specific language sufficient to show a conviction of the offense charged. It is in fact completely consistent with defendant\u2019s contention that he is not the father of the child. See, e.g., Lassiter, supra. By itself the verdict is senseless and unresponsive to the warrant and should not have been accepted by the trial court. The judgment of the court is therefore not supported by the verdict as rendered by the jury.\nAlthough a general verdict of \u201cguilty\u201d or \u201cguilty as charged\u201d may be proper, it is not required. State v. Ellis, 262 N.C. 446, 137 S.E. 2d 840 (1964). Indeed, we must strongly reemphasize that the preferred practice in cases charging a violation of G.S. 49-2 calls for the submission of written issues to the jury. State v. McKee, 269 N.C. 280, 152 S.E. 2d 204 (1967); State v. Lynch, 11 N.C. App. 432, 181 S.E. 2d 186 (1971). As the present case illustrates, \u201cthe submission of issues in prosecutions under G.S. 49-2 is, as a practical matter, almost a necessity.\u201d Ellis, 262 N.C. at 451, 137 S.E. 2d at 845. A jury\u2019s verdict based on such issues should include an individual determination of four issues. First, is defendant a parent of the illegitimate child in question? Second, did defendant receive notice and demand for support? Third, did defendant willfully neglect or refuse to provide adequate support for the child? Lastly, if the answers to the preceding are yes, is defendant guilty of willful neglect or refusal to maintain and provide adequate support for his illegitimate child? Such a verdict of the jury is in the nature of a special verdict and, when attempted, must reveal that all issues of ultimate material fact have been resolved against defendant. See generally, Ellis, supra.\nWe have carefully reviewed all additional assignments of error and find them to be without merit.\nJudgment vacated. Remanded for a new trial.\nJudges WHICHARD and JOHNSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Lemuel W. Hinton, for the State.",
      "William M. Allen, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RALPH MAJOR HOBSON\nNo. 8423SC42\n(Filed 2 October 1984)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 124; Bastards \u00a7 8\u2014 sufficiency of verdict \u2014 must allude to warrant or establish specific elements\nWhere defendant was charged with willful refusal to support and maintain his illegitimate child, a verdict of \u201cguilty of non-support of illegitimate child\u201d was improper because it did not allude generally to the warrant or use specific language sufficient to show a conviction of the offense charged. The preferred practice in cases charging a violation of G.S. 49-2 calls for submission of written issues to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Freeman, Judge. Judgment entered 24 August 1983 in Superior Court, Yadkin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 September 1984.\nDefendant was charged with the willful refusal to support and maintain his illegitimate child under G.S. 49-2. The jury returned a verdict of \u201c[g]uilty of non-support of illegitimate child.\u201d Defendant was given a six-month sentence to be suspended on the condition that he pay $45 per week in support. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Lemuel W. Hinton, for the State.\nWilliam M. Allen, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0619-01",
  "first_page_order": 651,
  "last_page_order": 653
}