{
  "id": 8549088,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HERMAN EUGENE TURNER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Turner",
  "decision_date": "1970-05-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7029SC67",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 73"
    }
  ],
  "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": "169 S.E. 2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 64",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546889
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0064-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N.C. 554",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631569
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0554-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 273,
    "char_count": 3936,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.625,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1793124340667965e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5882798572426423
    },
    "sha256": "068a035e5436adc6a08662487e54c6bdd966aeabaf6d67e1101e68756fa4a1b1",
    "simhash": "1:81a2f5e2923bfc2d",
    "word_count": 633
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "BroCK and Britt, JJ., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HERMAN EUGENE TURNER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "GRAHAM, J.\nDefendant contends that the indictment is fatally defective in that it fails to allege that the owner of the property allegedly stolen is either a natural person or a legal entity capable of owning property. This contention is without merit. Chapter 352 of the 1913 Private Laws of North Carolina provides in Section 1, at page 1044, as follows:\n\u201cThat the name of the town of Hendersonville, in Henderson County, be changed to The City of Hendersonville, which shall be a municipal corporation, . . .\u201d\nIn Section 2, beginning on page 1044, it is provided:\n\u201cThe city of Hendersonville shall have all of the rights, privileges, powers, \u25a0 immunities, \u2022 and liabilities which are conferred upon or are incident to incorporated cities and towns by virtue of the law of the land, ...\u201d\nIn Section 52, at page 1056, it is further provided:\n\u201cThis act [establishing Hendersonville a .municipal corporation] shall be deemed a public act, and judicial notice shall be taken thereof by the courts without the same being pleaded or read in evidence.\u201d (Emphasis added).\nIt is well established that judicial notice will be taken of public laws of this State, Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 12. We therefore take judicial notice of the fact that the City of Hendersonville is a municipal corporation. Cf. Winborne, Utilities Comr., v. Mackey, 206 N.C. 554, 174 S.E. 577.\nThis case differs substantially from State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 111 S.E. 2d 901, and State v. Thompson, 6 N.C. App. 64, 169 S.E. 2d 241, which are relied upon by defendant. Neither the indictment in Thornton nor the warrant in Thompson contained any words importing that the owner of the property involved was a corporation. Here, the words \u201cCity of Hendersonville\u201d denote a municipal corporate entity. Municipal corporations are expressly authorized to purchase and hold personal property. G.S. 160-2(4).\nSince, in our opinion, the indictment in question was valid in all respects it is unnecessary that we consider the State\u2019s contention that even if the bill of indictment was improper, jurisdiction was nevertheless acquired over the defendant when he tendered a plea of guilty to a lesser included offense.\nNo error.\nBroCK and Britt, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "GRAHAM, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Edward L. Batman, Jr., Staff Attorney, for the State.",
      "Prince, Youngblood, Massagee & Groce by Edwin R. Groce for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HERMAN EUGENE TURNER\nNo. 7029SC67\n(Filed 6 May 1970)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 31\u2014 judicial notice \u2014 municipal corporation\nTLe Court of Appeals takes judicial notice of the fact that the City of Hendersonville is a municipal corporation by virtue of Ch. 352, 1913 Private Laws of North Carolina.\nS. Larceny \u00a7 4; Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 11\u2014 sufficiency of indictment \u2014 ownership of stolen property \u2014 municipal corporation\nIndictment charging defendant with larceny of a truck which was the property of \u201cone City of Hendersonville, North Carolina\u201d sufficiently alleges that the owner of the stolen property is a legal entity capable of owning property, the words \u201cCity of Hendersonville\u201d denoting a municipal corporate entity, and municipal corporations being authorized by G.S. 160-2(4) to purchase and hold personal property.\nAppeal by defendant from Beal, S.J., 15 September 1969 Special Criminal Session of HeNdersoN County Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the larceny of a described Ford truck of the value of $2,000. The indictment alleged that the truck was the property of \u201cone City of Hendersonville, North Carolina.\u201d When the case was called for trial the defendant tendered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of larceny of property of less than $200 in value. The plea was accepted after the trial court ascertained, upon ample evidence, that it was freely, understanding^ and voluntarily entered.\nFrom judgment imposing an active prison sentence defendant appealed.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, by Edward L. Batman, Jr., Staff Attorney, for the State.\nPrince, Youngblood, Massagee & Groce by Edwin R. Groce for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 99
}
