{ "id": 8622482, "name": "STATE v. JOHNNIE JONES", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jones", "decision_date": "1947-02-26", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "170", "last_page": "172", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 N.C. 170" } ], "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": "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": "171 S. E., 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627771 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 N. C., 295", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8618216 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0295-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8601753 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S. E., 926", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628156 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0080-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 331, "char_count": 5247, "ocr_confidence": 0.461, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2072207684695131 }, "sha256": "3abe4b6248ac05ca1ead598aab0d0369910a38bcfb3c43130d9958abe5a78b15", "simhash": "1:473007d744399bcc", "word_count": 921 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JOHNNIE JONES." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe charge of attempting to assault an officer with a deadly weapon was not before the Superior Court. S. v. Nichols, 215 N. C., 80, 200 S. E., 926; S. v. Perry, 225 N. C., 174, 33 S. E. (2d), 869. The defendant had been acquitted on this count in the Eecorder\u2019s Court, and his appeal on the second warrant was limited to the count of resisting arrest. See S. v. Crandall, 225 N. C., 148, 33 S. E. (2d), 861, and cases there cited. Cf. S. v. Baldwin, 226 N. C., 295, 37 S. E. (2d), 898; S. v. Bell, 205 N. C., 225, 171 S. E., 50. When judgment of nonsuit was entered on this count, there remained nothing but the charge of disorderly conduct as contained in the first warrant.\nThe first warrant is artlessly drawn. Its imprecision is conceded.Indeed, it may be doubted whether it sufficiently charges any offense. But however this may be, the record hardly supports the charge of \u201cacting in a disorderly manner on Granville St. by using indecent language.\u201d\nThe ordinance of the Town of Tarboro provides: \u201cDisturbing of Peace. It shall be unlawful to disturb the good order, peace and quiet of the town.\u201d S. v. Sherrard, 117 N. C., 716, 23 S. E., 157.\nIf this be the ordinance which the defendant is charged with violating, so far as the record discloses, the only \u201cindecent language\u201d used by the defendant was an inquiry addressed to the chief of police, who immediately arrested the defendant, not so much for the inquiry, but because \u201che had run his mouth so much\u201d and \u201cwas killing time\u201d in getting his car out of the loading zone. The peace of the town seems to have been in the hands of the officers, who apparently were swift to enforce it, even to the point of harshness.\nOn the record as presented, we are constrained to hold that the prosecution on the first warrant must fail. This entitled the defendant to his discharge.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attomeys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.", "P. H. Bell for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHNNIE JONES.\n(Filed 26 February, 1947.)\n1. Criminal Haw \u00a7 14\u2014\nWhere in the trial in Recorder\u2019s Court defendant is found guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second, and appeals to the Superior Court, the charge on the second count is not before the Superior Court and a conviction on the second count in the Superior Court will be set aside as a nullity.\n2. Disorderly Conduct \u00a7 2\u2014\nDefendant was charged with disorderly conduct at a public place \u201cby using indecent language.\u201d The municipal ordinance provided that it should be unlawful to disturb the good order, peace and quiet of the town. The evidence disclosed that defendant was told by an officer to move his car from a zone newdy marked for loading, that defendant inquired when \u201call this God damn stuff\u201d was started in the town, and that the officer immediately arrested him because he had \u201crun his mouth\u201d and was \u201ckilling time.\u201d Held: The record fails to support the charge.\nAppeal by defendant from Stevens, J., at October Term, 1946, of Edgecombe.\nCriminal prosecution upon two warrants: In the first, it is alleged that \u201cin said county and in tbe Town of Tarboro (or the Town of Princeville), on or about the 16th day of February, 1946, the above named defendant unlawfully and wilfully violated the laws of the State of North Carolina or ordinances of said Town, acting in a disorderly manner on Granville St., by using indecent language, contrary to the statutes in such cases made and provided.\u201d In the second, the defendant is charged with resisting arrest and attempting to assault an officer with a deadly weapon.\nProm judgment of guilty in the magistrate\u2019s court on the first warrant, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.\nIn the Recorder\u2019s Court, the defendant was declared guilty of resisting arrest, but not guilty of attempting to assault an officer with a deadly weapon. Prom the judgment pronounced, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.\nTbe two appeals, on the separate warrants, were consolidated and heard together in the Superior Court, as both charges arise out of the same transaction.\nOn Saturday, 16 February, 1946, the defendant drove his car into the Town of Tarboro and parked it in a space which had \u201cjust been marked' off\u201d as a loading zone. The defendant was drinking but not drunk. The chief of police insisted that he move his car. After some hesitancy, the defendant got in his car, but \u201cseemed mad, and started cursing.\u201d He said to the officer: \u201cWhen did you all start all this God damn stuff around here?\u201d The chief of police, thereupon reached over and cut his switch off and told the defendant he was under arrest. \u201cThat was all the cursing he did but was killing time.\u201d A number of people were on the sidewalk near enough to hear what was said.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, judgment of nonsuit was entered on the charge of resisting arrest, and the ease was submitted to the jury on the remaining counts in the two warrants.\nVerdict: Guilty of disorderly conduct (first warrant) and guilty of attempting to assault an officer (second warrant).\nJudgment: Thirty days in jail on first warrant to run concurrently with sentence on second warrant; six months on the roads on second warrant.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attomeys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nP. H. Bell for defendant." }, "file_name": "0170-01", "first_page_order": 218, "last_page_order": 220 }