{
  "id": 11274838,
  "name": "STATE v. HOWIE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Howie",
  "decision_date": "1902-04-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "677",
  "last_page": "679",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "130 N.C. 677"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "113 N. C., 684",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 4771,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.386,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3004890917364487e-08,
      "percentile": 0.27103838872459357
    },
    "sha256": "f4773b30661a9bae9c7c103fc80c35ce9688d56d52ce393416d0821f12f5d367",
    "simhash": "1:ca49537297a50cdd",
    "word_count": 815
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:31:43.301896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HOWIE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Cooic, J.,\nafter stating the case. His Honor erred in ignoring the amended warrant, and also in holding that defendant was estopped from changing his plea upon appeal in the Superior Court. The amended warrant and plea of \u201cNot guilty\u201d thereto made.by defendant having been ignored by his Honor (to which no exception was taken), we can only pass upon the questions presented to us by the case on appeal, the most important of which is raised by the motion in arrest of judgment.\nThe warrant to which defendant pleaded \u201cGuilty\u201d in the Justice\u2019s Court charged no criminal offense whatsoever. Therefore, no judgment could be rendered upon it. His plea of \u201cGuilty\u201d was simply an admission that the facts, charged were true, and, if being true and constituting no offense, then he would be guilty of no. offense. He does not call in question the facts charged, but relies upon them for his justification. \u201cThe appeal could only bring up for review the question whether the facts charged, and of which the defendant admitted himself to be guilty, constitute an. offense punishable under the laws and Constitution.\u201d State v. Warren, 113 N. C., 684. Ohitty on Criminal Law, page 431, states the principle to be that \u201cNo confession, however large or explicit, will prevent the defendant from taking exceptions in arrest of judgment to faults apparent in the record\u201d; and Wharton\u2019s Criminal Practice and Pleading (9th Edition), Sec. 413, states the principle to be that \u201cBy a plea of guilty, defendant first confesses himself guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment; and if the indictment chai'ges do offense against the law, none is confessed. Hence, in such cases there may be motions for arrest of judgment or writ of error.\u201d\nIn this case no motion in arrest of judgment was made in the Justice\u2019s Court, but upon appeal the trial of the whole matter is had de novo in the Superior Court, where he had the right to make the motion.\nNo criminal offense having been charged in the warrant upon which his Honor ruled, it was error in not allowing the motion in arrest of judgment.\nJudgment Arrested.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Cooic, J.,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "Bedwine & Slade, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HOWIE.\n(Filed April 29, 1902.)\n1. PLEADINGS \u2014 'Warrant\u25a0\u2014Not Guilty \u2014 Pleas.\nWhere a defendant pleads guilty in a court of a justice of the peace, to a warrant charging no offense, and on appeal the warrant is amended in the superior court, it is error to refuse to allow Mm. to change his plea to not guilty.\n2. ARREST OP JUDGMENT' \u2014 Pleadings\u2014Appeal\u2014Warrant.\nA defendant who pleads guilty in the superior court may carry up, hy a motion in arrest of judgment, the question whether the charge against him constitutes an offense.\nINDICTMENT against Dock Howe, beard by Judge Walter 11. Neal and a jury, 'at July Term, 1901, of tbe Superior Court of Union County.\nDefendant was arrested upon a warrant issiied by a Justice of tbe Peace. Tbe offense intended toi be charged was for a failure to work upon the public roads, of which tbe Justice of tbe Peace had final jurisdiction. The warrant was fatally defective in that it did not charge facts which constitute an offense. At the trial upon the warrant before the Justice, defendant pleaded guilty, and from the judgment rendered against him appealed to the Superior Court. In the. Superior Court, upon motion of the Solicitor, the warrant was amended, and as amended the defendant pleaded \u201cNot guilty.\u201d But, as the record states, the \u201cCourt having inspected the warrant, announced to the defendant\u2019s counsel that it appeared from the warrant and the return of the Justice of the Peace that the defendant pleaded guilty before the Justice of the Peace, that this was an offense which Courts of Justices of the Peace have final jurisdiction, and the Court would hold that if the defendant pleaded guilty before the Justice, he could not now change his plea, and that the judgment of tlie Justice would be affirmed.\u201d The defendant, through his counsel, admitted that a plea of guilty was entered before the Justice on the warrant as it stood before any amendment was made. \u201cThe Court then stated that it would have the jury empaneled and let them pass on the question as to whether that plea was entered before the Justice.\u201d The jury was empaneled, and under appropriate instructions of the Court on that issue, the jury found the de^ fendant guilty.\u201d Thereupon, the Court rendered judgment as follows: \u201cThe judgment of the Court is that the judgment of the Justice of the Peace be affirmed,\u201d to which defendant excepted, and (together with other motions which were overruled and excepted to, and assignments of error) moved in arrest of judgment; motion overruled, and the defendant appealed from the judgment pronbunced.\nRobert D. Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nBedwine & Slade, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0677-01",
  "first_page_order": 715,
  "last_page_order": 717
}