{
  "id": 8625689,
  "name": "STATE v. R. C. SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1937-01-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "206",
  "last_page": "207",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 206"
    }
  ],
  "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": "135 S. E., 529",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 N. C., 588",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625312
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/192/0588-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S. E., 453",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N. C., 675",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614770
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0675-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S. E., 532",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S. E., 711",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N. C., 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221284
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S. E., 298",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 S. E., 301",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 797",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629746
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0797-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2486,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.482,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2062698408603277e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5948785044996832
    },
    "sha256": "7f7ce032456101396127b2453129ccf40217b21736d963b3aa1666d6719e58e9",
    "simhash": "1:07f86f006d30a0a6",
    "word_count": 422
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. R. C. SMITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nThe defendant by his appeal seeks to test tRe constitutionality of the traffic ordinance which makes it unlawful for more than two taxicabs, owned by the same company, to be parked in a single block in the city of Greensboro at the same time. The warrant is not sufficient to charge a violation of the ordinance. Indeed, it charges no offense at all. The action will be dismissed on authority of S. v. Beasley, 196 N. C., 797, 147 S. E., 301, and S. v. Shipman, 203 N. C., 325, 166 S. E., 298.\nIt is not after the manner of appellate courts to decide constitutional questions except in the exercise of judicial power properly invoked. S. v. Williams, 209 N. C., 57, 182 S. E., 711; In re Parker, ibid., 693, 184 S. E., 532; Newman v. Comrs., 208 N. C., 675, 182 S. E., 453; Wood v. Braswell, 192 N. C., 588, 135 S. E., 529. A warrant that cRarges no offense will not suffice for such invocation, even though its invalidity be observed sua sponte. S. v. Beasley, supra.\nAction dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seaivell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.",
      "Shelley B. Gaveness for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. R. C. SMITH.\n(Filed 27 January, 1937.)\n1. Constitutional law \u00a7 6c \u2014 Supreme Court will dismiss action in exercise of supervisory power when warrant fails to charge offense for which defendant was tried.\nDefendant was tried for the violation of an ordinance upon a warrant which was insufficient to charge the offense. An appeal was taken to test the constitutionality of the ordinance. Held: The Supreme Court will not decide the constitutional question sought to be presented, but will dismiss the action in the exercise of its supervisory power over proceedings of lower courts.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 6b\u2014\nThe constitutionality of an ordinance will not be decided upon an appeal from a conviction obtained upon an invalid warrant, since the appeal does not properly invoke the exercise of the judicial power.\nAppeal by defendant from Harris, J., at September Special Term, 1936, of Guilbobd.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon warrant charging defendant with violation of traffic ordinance of city of Greensboro, to wit, \u201cpark taxi in block with more than two others.\u201d\nThe ordinance alleged to Rave Reen violated provides tRat \u201cRiot more tRan two taxicabs owned Ry tRe same company sRall Re parked in one block at tRe same time,\u201d except at establisRed taxi stands, etc. '\nVerdict: Guilty.\nJudgment: Eine of $1.00 and costs.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Seaivell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.\nShelley B. Gaveness for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0206-01",
  "first_page_order": 272,
  "last_page_order": 273
}