{ "id": 8628244, "name": "STATE v. I. J. SANDERSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sanderson", "decision_date": "1938-04-13", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "381", "last_page": "382", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "213 N.C. 381" } ], "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": "65 S. E., 908", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N. C., 660", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655884 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0660-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 S. E., 65", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 803", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655180 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0803-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S. E., 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "164 N. C., 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658513 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/164/0411-01" ] }, { "cite": "115 S. E., 57", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N. C., 783", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272381 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0783-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 231, "char_count": 3392, "ocr_confidence": 0.469, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.663806401086183e-08, "percentile": 0.35302000232445985 }, "sha256": "95e23e4b588da9bbeb85902675f8a59d3606fda4105b77e039f7e19e47be9a15", "simhash": "1:1a325b903308b458", "word_count": 582 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. I. J. SANDERSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe defendant bas been tried upon a warrant charging bim with a felony, to wit, tbe second offense of manufacturing spirituous liquors. C. S., 3409; S. v. Burnett, 184 N. C., 783, 115 S. E., 57. Eor tbis offense trial may be bad only upon a bill of indictment found by a grand jury. S. v. Hyman, 164 N. C., 411, 79 S. E., 284.\nIn tbis view of tbe matter tbe defendant\u2019s plea of tbe statute of limitations, C. S., 4512, on tbe misdemeanor count becomes immaterial. S. v. Hedden, 187 N. C., 803, 123 S. E., 65.\n\"Whether tbe solicitor can now proceed upon tbe bill of indictment, tbe nolle prosequi being without leave, is not before us for decision. S. v. Williams, 151 N. C., 660, 65 S. E., 908.\nTbe motion in arrest of judgment is well taken.\nJudgment arrested.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Willis for the State.", "N. B. Boney and R. J). Johnson for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. I. J. SANDERSON.\n(Filed 13 April, 1938.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 11: Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 5c\u2014\nThe second offense of manufacturing spirituous liquor is a felony. C. S., 3409.\n2. Constitutional Law \u00a7 26: Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9a\u2014\nA person may he tried on a charge of manufacturing spirituous liquor for the second offense only upon indictment, since the offense is a felony.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 7\u2014\nWhere a warrant charging a misdemeanor is amended to charge a felony, defendant\u2019s plea of the statute of limitations on the misdemeanor count becomes immaterial. C. S., 4512.\n4. Same\u2014\nWhether a nolle prosequi without leave prevents the running of the statute of limitations against the offense charged, quiere.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 56\u2014\nWhen it appears that defendant 'was tried and convicted upon a warrant charging a felony, his motion in arrest of judgment should be allowed, since a person may be tried for a felony only upon indictment.\nAppeal by defendant from Hamilton, Special Judge, at November Term, 1937, of DupliN.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon warrant charging the defendant with operating \u201ca whiskey still and having whiskey in his possession for the purpose of sale (amended \u2014 this being a second offense for manufacturing whiskey).\u201d\nThe warrant was issued 16 September, 1935, charging the offense as having been committed on the same day.\nOn 3 August, 1936, the warrant was amended so as to charge a second offense, making it a felony; whereupon the defendant waived preliminary hearing and was bound over to the Superior Court for trial.\nAt the October Term, 1936, Duplin Superior Court, a hill of indictment was returned by the grand jury, upon which the solicitor took a \"nol. pros/\u2019 at the January Term, 1937, and the cause was remanded to the general county court for trial upon the original warrant.\nWhen the case was reached for trial in the general county court on 11 October, 1937, the defendant moved to dismiss for that the offense charged in the warrant was committed more than two years prior thereto. Overruled; exception.\nThe defendant was convicted in the general county court and sentenced to twelve months on the roads. From the judgment he appealed to the Superior Court of Duplin County.\nUpon tbe call of tbe case in tbe Superior Court tbe defendant moved to quasb and renewed bis motion to dismiss. Overruled; exception.\nVerdict: Guilty.\nJudgment: Two years on tbe roads.\nMotion in arrest of judgment denied.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Willis for the State.\nN. B. Boney and R. J). Johnson for defendant." }, "file_name": "0381-01", "first_page_order": 445, "last_page_order": 446 }