{ "id": 8659022, "name": "STATE v. SEBORN STRANGE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Strange", "decision_date": "1922-04-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "775", "last_page": "776", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "183 N.C. 775" } ], "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": "153 N. C., 646", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273649 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0646-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 1021", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 673", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653841 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 N. C., 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2088640 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/52/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 N. C., 678", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654639 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0678-01" ] }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 759", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272316 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 N. C., 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658442 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/164/0399-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 229, "char_count": 3515, "ocr_confidence": 0.477, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.543720606372263e-07, "percentile": 0.6734245896189315 }, "sha256": "2ca210aef8579f5819403c2cd28f91318210a178d35b498bab718235e8487065", "simhash": "1:6573942b6356b03e", "word_count": 610 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. SEBORN STRANGE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Adams, J.\nThe defendant assigns as error \u201chis Honor\u2019s pronouncing judgment\u201d in the case in which the defendant had pleaded guilty at a previous term. But the record shows that bis Honor, instead of pronouncing judgment, ordered the defendant into custody under the judgment previously rendered, upon finding that be bad not complied with its terms. This procedure is sustained by the decisions of this Court. S. v. Everitt, 164 N. C., 399; S. v. Greer, 173 N. C., 759; S. v. Hoggard, 180 N. C., 678.\nThe defendant contends, in the second place, that there was no sufficient evidence to support bis Honor\u2019s instruction as to the unlawful transportation of the liquor. If this should be granted, still in support of two other counts there was ample evidence, and the jury returned a general verdict. Where there are several counts in an indictment, and there is evidence relating only to one, a general verdict will be presumed to have been returned on the count to which the evidence applies. S. v. Long, 52 N. C., 24; S. v. Cross, 106 N. C., 650; S. v. Toole, ibid., 736; S. v. Gilchrist, 113 N. C., 673; S. v. May, 132 N. C., 1021; S. v. Gregory, 153 N. C., 646.\nWfi find no error, and this will be certified.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Adams, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.", "J. H. Folger for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. SEBORN STRANGE.\n(Filed 12 April, 1922.)\n1. Criminal Law \u2014 Judgments\u2014Condition of Good Behavior \u2014 Rearrest.\nWhere the trial judge ascertains that the defendant in a criminal action has violated the condition of good behavior, upon which judgment had been rendered against him at a prior term of court, and orders him into custody under the judgment previously rendered, it is not objectionable as pronouncing judgment in that case, but is in conformity with our decisions.\n2. Criminal Law \u2014 Indictment \u2014 Counts \u2014 General Verdict \u2014 Evidence\u2014 Presumptions.\nWhere there is evidence to sustain a conviction on one or several counts of an indictment, a general verdict will be presumed to have been returned on the count or counts to which the evidence applies.\nAppeal by defendant from Long,J., at October Term, 1921, of Subby.\nThe defendant was prosecuted on an indictment containing four counts, charging bim (1) with the unlawful sale of liquor; (2) with having liquor in his possession for the purpose of sale; (3) with unlawfully receiving liquor; and (4) with the unlawful transportation. His Honor instructed the jury upon the evidence relating to the second, third, and fourth counts. There was a general verdict of guilty.\nThe defendant, at a previous term, -had pleaded guilty of unlawfully receiving liquor, and judgment had been suspended upon payment of costs, the defendant having given bond to appear at each criminal term for two years and show his good behavior, in default of which a capias was to issue and the defendant was to be worked on the roads for twelve months. This case is No. 40. At the October Term, 1922, he was convicted of retailing in No. 46, and in No. 21 there was a verdict of guilty as above stated. In No. 40 his Honor found that the defendant had not been of good behavior, and ordered him into the custody of the sheriff under the sentence pronounced at the former term to the end that the sentence should be executed. In No. 46 the defendant was sentenced to twelve months on the roads, the service to begin at the expiration of the sentence in No. 40; and in No. 21 the prayer for judgment was continued.\nThe defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nJ. H. Folger for defendant." }, "file_name": "0775-01", "first_page_order": 835, "last_page_order": 836 }