{
  "id": 8654639,
  "name": "STATE v. TOM HOGGARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hoggard",
  "decision_date": "1920-09-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "678",
  "last_page": "679",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "180 N.C. 678"
    }
  ],
  "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": "164 N. C., 399",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658442
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/164/0399-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 N. C., 687",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8655961
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/151/0687-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N. C., 760",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653020
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0760-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 759",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272316
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0759-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2425,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.435,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.435587992496082e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9209637318623596
    },
    "sha256": "4b11ce4e89af87dc17585f88be2b83a78a115622f90d058b0610db5fc1bf4ad6",
    "simhash": "1:06a1c6ccacf96b4e",
    "word_count": 409
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:30:08.757715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. TOM HOGGARD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BbowN, J.\nThis was an appeal from a sentence upon a suspended judgment by his Honor, E. H. Cranmer, judge presiding, at July Term, 1920, of the Superior Court of Washington County. The facts upon which such sentence was based are as follows :\nThe defendant was indicted in two cases for retailing spirituous liquor. By agreement, the defendant plead guilty in case number one, and a fine was imposed upon him. In case number two he pleaded guilty; the prayer for judgment was continued upon payment of costs and the execution of a bond for defendant\u2019s appearance and show that he had not violated the prohibition laws of the State.\nThe defendant was afterwards indicted for retailing liquor. At July Term, 1920, judgment was prayed upon the suspended judgment, which had been suspended upon good behavior.\nThe court heard the evidence, and found that the defendant had engaged in the unlawful sale of liquor in violation of the terms of the suspended judgment, and sentenced the defendant to two years on the roads.\nThe right of a judge to impose sentence upon a judgment suspended upon good behavior is well settled. We said in S. v. Greer, 173 N. C., 759: \u201cWhen judgment is suspended in a criminal action upon good behavior, or other conditions, the proceedings to ascertain whether the terms have been complied with are addressed to the reasonable discretion of the judge of the court, and do not come within the jury\u2019s province. The findings of the judge, and his judgment upon them, are not reviewable upon appeal unless there is a manifest abuse of such discretion.\u201d S. v. Crook, 115 N. C., 760; S. v. Hilton, 151 N. C., 687; S. v. Everitt, 164 N. C., 399.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BbowN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Ward & Grimes and P. E. Bell for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. TOM HOGGARD.\n(Filed 22 September, 1920.)\nJudgment \u2014 Criminal I/aw \u2014 Suspension of Judgments \u2014 Violation of Conditions \u2014 Trial Judge \u2014 Discretion\u2014Trial by Jury \u2014 Appeal and Error.\nTbe proceedings of tbe trial judge in a criminal action to ascertain whether the terms of a suspended judgment have been complied with, are addressed to bis reasonable discretion, and do not fall within the province of the jury; and his action thereon is not reviewable on appeal when supported by evidence, unless this discretion has been manifestly abused by him.\nAppeal by defendant from Devin, J., at the October Term, 1919, of WASHINGTON.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nWard & Grimes and P. E. Bell for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0678-01",
  "first_page_order": 736,
  "last_page_order": 737
}