{
  "id": 8602171,
  "name": "STATE v. JOE LASSITER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lassiter",
  "decision_date": "1935-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "251",
  "last_page": "252",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 N.C. 251"
    }
  ],
  "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": "67 S. E., 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 N. C., 790",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273104
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/152/0790-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S. E., 402",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 N. C., 602",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654585
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/188/0602-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "131 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., 80",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 526",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612665
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0526-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2723,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.462,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.471400946737235e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9220614792599877
    },
    "sha256": "62a13640d964c0833a91b0ddbdbf34e7dacdb203204b40be5998cbb4114ff065",
    "simhash": "1:5ed04447887fa0ed",
    "word_count": 476
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOE LASSITER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nIt may be doubted whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant a conviction under the decisions in S. v. Hege, 194 N. C., 526, 140 S. E., 80, and S. v. Mull, 193 N. C., 668, 131 S. E., 866. But, however this may be, the verdict is not sufficient to support a judgment. S. v. Barbee, 197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249. It neither alludes to the warrant nor uses language to show a conviction of the offense charged therein. S. v. Shew, 194 N. C., 690, 140 S. E., 621. It is entirely consistent with the defendant\u2019s contention that the possession was lawful. S. v. Mull, supra; S. v. Hammond, 188 N. C., 602, 125 S. E., 402.\nHad the verdict been \u201cguilty of possession as charged in the second count,\u201d or simply \u201cguilty as charged in the second count,\u201d the situation would have been different, but when the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without specific reference to the charge, as in the instant case, it is essential that the spelling be correct. S. v. Parker, 152 N. C., 790, 67 S. E., 35.\nVenire de novo.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Ailcen for the State.",
      "W. B. Olegg for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOE LASSITER.\n(Filed 22 May, 1935.)\nIntoxicating Liquor B c \u2014 Verdict of \u201cGuilty of possession\u201d held insufficient to suppoi't judgment where defendant contends possession was lawful.\nWhere, in a prosecution for the illegal possession of intoxicating liquor, defendant contends that the small quantity of liquor found in his home was for the exclusive use of himself and family, a verdict of \u201cGuilty of possession,\u201d without reference to the count charging possession against the form of the statute, is insufficient to support a judgment, since such verdict is entirely consistent with defendant\u2019s contention that his possession was lawful.\nAppeal by defendant from Clement, J., at August Term, 1934, of Moore.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon warrant charging tbe defendant, in one count, with having and possessing a quantity of intoxicating liquor for tbe purpose of sale, and, in a second count, with having and possessing a quantity of intoxicating liquor against tbe form of tbe statute in sucb case made and provided, etc.\nTbe State\u2019s evidence is to tbe effect that on 1 April, 1934, an officer went to tbe home of tbe defendant with a search warrant and was shown to tbe ice-box where be found about three pints of whiskey in a fruit jar. It was aged liquor, charred, colored.\nDefendant testified: I told tbe officer I bad about three pints of whiskey in the ice-box for my own use. I did not have it there for the purpose of sale. It was for my own use and my family.\nYerdict: \u201cGuilty of possession.\u201d\nJudgment: Six months on the roads.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Ailcen for the State.\nW. B. Olegg for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0251-01",
  "first_page_order": 317,
  "last_page_order": 318
}