{ "id": 8622855, "name": "STATE v. EDGAR McKNIGHT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McKnight", "decision_date": "1936-04-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "57", "last_page": "58", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "210 N.C. 57" } ], "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": "71 N. C., 266", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277661 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/71/0266-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S. E., 1032", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 752", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651638 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0752-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 S. E., 533", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 N. C., 695", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654713 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0695-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S. E., 837", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 557", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621910 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0557-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S. E., 498", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0683-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 212, "char_count": 3254, "ocr_confidence": 0.462, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3815394263498887e-07, "percentile": 0.6406371568381014 }, "sha256": "21394fac652067a90cfd6af6f3b2b4ea61ae46cc9ba1f99c4714b50e1ce2b740", "simhash": "1:d832961812908ebf", "word_count": 558 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:05.250790+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. EDGAR McKNIGHT." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nOn the record as it came from the recorder\u2019s court, the defendant was entitled to a trial de novo in the Superior Court. Ch. 338, sec. 3, Private Laws 1909. The solicitor sought to show by evidence dehors that the defendant entered a plea of guilty in the recorder\u2019s court, and that, therefore, the appeal was only on matters of law, e.g., sufficiency of warrant, validity of statute, or legality of judgment. S. v. Warren, 113 N. C., 683, 18 S. E., 498. Compare S. v. Ingram, 204 N. C., 557, 168 S. E., 837. Without resorting to certiorari or recordari, the judge undertook to determine the question for himself. This was in excess of his authority. S. v. Pasley, 180 N. C., 695, 104 S. E., 533; S. v. Koonce, 108 N. C., 752, 12 S. E., 1032; Neal v. Cowles, 71 N. C., 266.\nLet the cause be remanded for disposition sanctioned by law.\nError.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bruton for the State.", "Carswell & Ervin for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. EDGAR McKNIGHT.\n(Filed 29 April, 1936.)\nCriminal Law G m \u2014 Plea entered by defendant in recorder\u2019s court held not determinable in Superior Court by evidence dehors the record.\nOn appeal by defendant from judgment of tbe recorder\u2019s court, tbe court beard evidence dehors tbe record offered by tbe solicitor tending to show that defendant bad pleaded guilty in tbe recorder\u2019s court, tbe record failing to show tbe plea entered by defendant in that court. Tbe judge of tbe Superior Court found, from tbe evidence offered by tbe solicitor, that defendant bad entered a plea of \u201cguilty\u201d in tbe recorder\u2019s court. Held: It was error for the judge of tbe Superior Court to determine tbe plea entered in tbe recorder\u2019s court upon the evidence dehors the record. Tbe court might have resorted to a writ of certiorari or recordari.\nAppeal by defendant from Sink, J., at January Special Term, 1936, of MeckleNbueg.\nCriminal prosecution, tried originally in the recorder\u2019s court of the city of Charlotte upon warrant charging the defendant with operating an automobile on a public highway while under the influence of an intoxicant, in violation of 0. S., 4606.\nFrom judgment in recorder\u2019s court that defendant pay a fine of $50 and costs and assigned to work on the roads for ninety days \u2014 the road sentence to be suspended on condition the defendant refrain from driving an automobile in this State for that period \u2014 the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County.\n\"When the ease was called for trial in the Superior Court, the defendant entered a plea of \u201cNot guilty\u201d; whereupon, the solicitor sought to show by evidence dehors the record that he had pleaded guilty in the recorder\u2019s court. The transcript of the record did not show what plea was entered in the recorder\u2019s court.\nAfter hearing evidence, pro and con, the judge found as a fact that the defendant had entered a plea of guilty in the recorder\u2019s court, and declined, in his discretion, to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea entered in the recorder\u2019s court and enter a plea of not guilty in the Superior Court.\nJudgment was thereupon rendered that the defendant pay the minimum fine of $50 and costs, and surrender his driver\u2019s license to the clerk.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bruton for the State.\nCarswell & Ervin for defendant." }, "file_name": "0057-01", "first_page_order": 123, "last_page_order": 124 }