{
  "id": 8597326,
  "name": "STATE v. THOMAS MYRICK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Myrick",
  "decision_date": "1932-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "8",
  "last_page": "9",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 8"
    }
  ],
  "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": "115 Ore., 187",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Or.",
      "case_ids": [
        2032116
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/or/115/0187-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 N. C., 567",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697598
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/87/0567-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 S. E., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 N. C., 716",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653852
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/117/0716-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 S. E., 866",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 N. C., 668",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2217872
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/193/0668-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "140 S. E., 621",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 690",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616362
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0690-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "148 S. E., 249",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N. C., 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628274
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 S. E., 548",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 N. C., 803",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661296
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/124/0803-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3264,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.454,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0148201794951588e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5431739456624691
    },
    "sha256": "e1f3814c0f424b4b2d8c598de32e0a132d34ce13fa599fd4b2b41210933c55de",
    "simhash": "1:6ed10304aeb99fac",
    "word_count": 584
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. THOMAS MYRICK."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe defendant is indicted under 3 C. S., 4451(a), which makes it a misdemeanor for \u201cany person to be drunk and disorderly in any public place or on any public road or street,\u201d and provides that upon conviction the accused shall be fined not exceeding $50 or imprisoned not exceeding 30 days in the discretion of the court.\nIt is conceded by the Attorney-General that the case should be remanded for proper judgment, the sentence being excessive under the statute (S. v. Taylor, 124 N. C., 803, 32 S. E., 548), unless the verdict amounts to an acquittal.\nThe case is not like S. v. Barbee, 197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249, or S. v. Shew, 194 N. C., 690, 140 S. E., 621, where the verdict was defective or insufficient and a venire de novo was ordered, for here the jury specifically finds the defendant not guilty of being drunk, and it would seem that the statute only contemplates a pronouncement against a person who is both drunk and disorderly in a public place, road or street. Drunkenness may be a species of disorderliness, but disorderliness is not necessarily drunkenness. We are, therefore, constrained to hold that on the record, as presented, the defendant is entitled to be discharged. S. v. Mull, 193 N. C., 668, 137 S. E., 866.\nWe are not called upon to say whether the defendant could be held for an indictable nuisance or other offense forbidden by the general law of the State. S. v. Sherrard, 117 N. C., 716, 23 S. E., 157.\nNor are we presently under the necessity of deciding when, as a matter of law, a person may be said to be drunk. In other days, Dean Mordecai was wont to give his students the following definition:\nNot drunk is he who from the floor Can rise again or drink once more:\nBut drunk is he who prostrate lies And cannot either drink or rise!\nBut the word, we apprehend, is used in the statute in a freer or more liberal sense. S. v. McNinch, 87 N. C., 567; S. v. McDaniel, 115 Ore., 187, 237 Pac., 373; Law Notes, September, 1931, page 112.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "S. J. Ervin and S. J. Ervin, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. THOMAS MYRICK.\n(Filed 15 June, 1932.)\nCriminal Law I k \u2014 Verdict of guilty of disorderly conduct but not of drunkenness will not support conviction for drunken and disorderly conduct.\nWhere in a prosecution under 3 C. S., 4457(a), making it a misdemeanor for \u201cany person to be drunk and disorderly in any public place. . . .\u201d the jury returns a verdict of guilty of disorderly conduct but not guilty of being intoxicated: Held, the statute contemplates a pronouncement against a person who is both drunk and disorderly, and the defendant is entitled to be discharged.\nAppeal by defendant from Moore,, J., at December Term, 1931, of Burke.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon a magistrate\u2019s warrant charging the defendant with being drunk and disorderly on a public road in violation of 3 C. S., 4451(a).\nVerdict: \u201cGuilty of disorderly conduct on a public road, but not guilty of being intoxicated.\u201d\nJudgment: \u201cThat the defendant pay a fine of $50 and the costs and be confined in the common jail of Burke County for 30 days and give a bond with sureties in the sum of $250 to keep the peace.\u201d\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nS. J. Ervin and S. J. Ervin, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0008-01",
  "first_page_order": 76,
  "last_page_order": 77
}