{
  "id": 8628442,
  "name": "STATE v. BILL DANIELS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Daniels",
  "decision_date": "1929-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "285",
  "last_page": "286",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "197 N.C. 285"
    }
  ],
  "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": "145 N. C., 432",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11253576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/145/0432-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 N. C., 844",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11254244
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/141/0844-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "80 N. C., 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8694234
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/80/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N. C., 144",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8691066
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/20/0144-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 200,
    "char_count": 2481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.45,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.3109041671392236e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8724531816333694
    },
    "sha256": "0f7d4b207f490ba02237d83b7c84093f069cbb4d348c4e7c7a4b387b7657a429",
    "simhash": "1:5f1ef6372aa6c425",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BILL DANIELS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Oubiam.\nTbe defendant was indicted for a breach of the prohibition laws. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show that after the defendant\u2019s car had been overtaken and stopped by an officer three seats were removed and three cases of whiskey (21 gallons) were found under quilts, and that farther back under the seat were 2% gallons of liquor in half-gallon fruit jars. The defendant was the driver of the ear. Immediately after his arrest he was taken to the courthouse; an indictment was prepared and returned as \u201ca true bill\u201d; the case was then called in less than an hour after the arrest and the defendant pleaded guilty. He made no motion for a continuance or for time to employ and confer with counsel or for a subpoena for witnesses. Time to employ counsel or to get witnesses was not denied the defendant by the court, but was waived by the defendant when he entered his plea and admitted his guilt. In the absence of a motion for a reasonable continuance an exception to the short time intervening between the arrest and the arraignment does not constitute sufficient cause for a new trial.\nThe third assignment of error is that the sentence was excessive, but as it was authorized by the law it cannot be held to be \u201ccruel or unusual\u201d within the contemplation of Art. I, sec. 14, of the Constitution. S. v. Manuel, 20 N. C., 144; S. v. Pettie, 80 N. C., 367; S. v. Farrington, 141 N. C., 844; S. v. Dowdy, 145 N. C., 432.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Oubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Robert R. Reynolds and W. A. Sullivan for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BILL DANIELS.\n(Filed 22 May, 1929.)\n1. Criminal Law H a \u2014 Where time to employ and consult counsel and subpoena witnesses is not demanded by defendant he waives right thereto.\nWhere a trial of the defendant for violating the prohibition law is had within thirty or forty minutes from the time of his arrest, in the regular course of procedure, and the defendant does not demand time to employ and consult counsel or subpoena witnesses he waives any right thereto, and a sentence in the action will be sustained in law.\n2. Criminal Law E d \u2014 Sentence prescribed by statute for violation of prohibition law is not cruel or unusual punishment.\nA sentence prescribed by statute for the violation of the prohibition law is held not to be cruel or unusual within the meaning of Article I, section 14, of our Constitution.\nAppeal by defendant from Schenck, J., at February Term, 1929, of MadisoN.\nNo error.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nRobert R. Reynolds and W. A. Sullivan for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0285-01",
  "first_page_order": 349,
  "last_page_order": 350
}