{ "id": 8628272, "name": "STATE v. EDWIN PETERSON (alias BOYMAN PETERSON)", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Peterson", "decision_date": "1948-04-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "736", "last_page": "740", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "228 N.C. 736" } ], "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": "227 N. C., 201", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622784 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0201-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603852 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N. C., 137", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629015 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0137-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S. E., 281", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N. C., 526", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630175 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0526-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S. E., 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 719", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630362 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S. E., 654", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658659 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 S. E., 178", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "180 N. C., 733", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654821 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0733-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S. E., 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "179 N. C., 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658287 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/179/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S. E. 537", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "177 N. C., 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654883 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/177/0541-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 490, "char_count": 9203, "ocr_confidence": 0.484, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.773283207195495e-08, "percentile": 0.49557329404146727 }, "sha256": "5f1d912f23071efb081f92095eb156a6c46bdd8e1b4285f27b427e9edcc6bd1e", "simhash": "1:c9357bd3c2989579", "word_count": 1606 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:37.324265+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. EDWIN PETERSON (alias BOYMAN PETERSON)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WiNBORNE, J.\nOne assignment only is debated on this appeal. It challenges the correctness of the ruling of the trial court in denying defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit, and in submitting the case to the jury.\nIn this connection, the evidence set out in the case on appeal tends to show that, as seen by -two officers, a still, \u2014 \u201csubmarine-like,\u201d for the manufacture of whiskey was \u201cfired up\u201d and in operation. Barrels of beer or mash were at the still. Whiskey was running out of the still at the time. About a gallon in a jug had just run out. And defendant alone was present, \u2014 stooping over, and, upon seeing the officer, he fled.\nWhen this evidence is taken in the light most favorable to the State, as is done in considering a motion for judgment as of nonsuit, it is sufficient to take tbe ease to the jury, and to support a verdict of guilty on both, counts with which, defendant stands charged.\nThis holding finds support in numerous decisions of this Court. S. v. Ogleston, 177 N. C., 541, 98 S. E. 537; S. v. Perry, 179 N. C., 718, 102 S. E., 277; S. v. Blackwell, 180 N. C., 733, 105 S. E., 178; S. v. Smith, 183 N. C., 725, 110 S. E., 654.\nThe Ogleston case is similar in factual situation to that in the present case. In that case the still was in actual operation and defendants were the only persons present. The Court held that the inference that defendants were in charge of the still and operating it was at least permissible.\nMoreover, the fact of flight by defendant, when discovered at the still, is competent evidence to be considered by the jury in connection with other circumstances in passing upon the question of guilt. S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719, 197 S. E., 573; and cases cited. See also S. v. Adams, 191 N. C., 526, 132 S. E., 281.\nAfter careful consideration of all questions presented, we find in the judgment below\nNo error.\nRegarding the appeal from the judgment of the Superior Court in No. 2788 affirming judgment of the General County Court No. 5892, which put into effect the eight -months road sentence theretofore imposed by it and suspended on condition, and which the court finds the defendant has breached:\nThe Attorney-General moves to dismiss this appeal on the ground that no provision is made for an appeal from an inferior court to the Superior Court in such cases, \u2014 the remedy being by certiorari to be obtained from Superior Court upon proper showing aptly made. S. v. King, 222 N. C., 137, 22 S. E. (2d), 241; S. v. Miller, 225 N. C., 213, 34 S. E. (2d), 143.\nIn this connection, in the absence of a showing of record that the case came to the Superior Court by means of a writ of certiorari, or to show that the case docketed in Superior Court as upon appeal was treated as a return to a writ of certiorari, the Superior Court acquired no jurisdiction, and the case should have been dismissed. And, in this Court, where the lack of jurisdiction is apparent, the Court may, and will, on plea, suggestion, motion, or ex mero motu, stop the proceedings. See S. v. King, supra, S. v. Miller, supra; Gill, Comr., v. McLean, 227 N. C., 201, 41 S. E. (2d), 514.\nThe argument directed to the assignments of error in the principal case on this appeal is the only argument advanced by the defendant as reason for disturbing the action of the General County Court, \u2014 a kind of saving clause, just in case error be found therein. Motion to dismiss is allowed.", "type": "majority", "author": "WiNBORNE, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes and Moody for the State.", "J. Faison Thomson, F. Wdllcer Stevens, and Scott B. Berlceley for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. EDWIN PETERSON (alias BOYMAN PETERSON).\n(Filed 7 April, 1948.)\n1\u2018. Intoxicating Diquor \u00a7 9d\u2014\nEvidence that defendant was apprehended at a still which was then in operation and which had manufactured about a gallon of whiskey, and that upon seeing the officer, he fled, is sufficient to be submitted to the jury on each- of the charges of possession of nontax-paid whiskey and possession of property designed for the manufacture of intoxicating liquor and aiding and abetting in its manufacture.\nS. Criminal Daw \u00a7 34d\u2014\nThe fact that defendant, upon being apprehended at a still in operation, fled immediately upon seeing an officer, is competent to be considered by the jury in connection with the other circumstances.\n3. Criminal Daw \u00a7 6af: Courts \u00a7 4b\u2014\nNo appeal lies to the Superior Court from judgment of the general county court executing a suspended sentence on condition broken, review being solely by certiorari.\n4. Criminal Daw \u00a7 67: Appeal and Error \u00a7 31j\u2014\nWhere the Superior Court has no jurisdiction, the Supreme Court can acquire none by appeal, and when lack of jurisdiction is apparent, the appeal will be dismissed on plea, suggestion, motion, or ex mero motu,\nAppeal by defendant from Burney, J., at December Term, 1947, of DupliN.\nCriminal prosecution on warrant No. 6208, executed 3 March, 1944, amended to charge that on 21 January, 1944, defendant (1) \u201cdid have in his possession intoxicating liquors upon which the taxes imposed by the laws of the Congress of the United States and the State of North Carolina had not been paid,\u201d and (2) \u201cdid possess property designed for the manufacture of liquor and did aid and abet in the manufacture of intoxicating liquor,\u201d contrary to the form of the statute, etc., tried 6 March, 1944, in General County Court of Duplin County. The General County Court found defendant guilty, and pronounced judgment that he be confined in the common jail, etc. He appealed therefrom to Superior Court \u2014 the case being given there number 2789.\nWhen the case came on for hearing in Superior Court defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried anew.\nThe State offered as witnesses two officers whose testimony tends to show these facts: That on 21 January, 1944, they \u201cwent in\u201d on a \u201csubmarine like still\u201d which was \u201cfired up\u201d and in operation southwest of Warsaw; that defendant, who was the only person there, raised up, and, when he saw one of the officers, \u201cwent to running\u201d out right by the other officer; that there were four barrels of beer-mash at the still; that liquor was running out of the still at the time; that there was some whiskey that had just run out, about a gallon in a jug, \u2014 some manufactured whiskey in a container or jug; and that though the officers tried to catch defendant, they did not apprehend him that day.\nYerdict: Guilty on both counts, first, guilty of possession of nontax-paid whiskey, and second, guilty of possession of materials for the purpose of manufacturing nontax-paid whiskey.\nJudgment \u2014 On the first count: That defendant be confined in the common jail of Duplin County for a term of 18 months and assigned to work the public roads of the State under the supervision of the State Highway & Public Works Commission as provided by law.\nOn the second count: Prison sentence identical with that on the first count \u2014 \u201cto run concurrently therewith.\u201d\nDefendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nAnd the record on this appeal also shows that at a term of General County Court of Duplin County held \u201con the 4th day of May, 1943,\u201d defendant was tried upon a warrant No. 5892 amended to charge that on 11 November, 1942, defendant \u201cdid have in his possession intoxicating liquors upon which the taxes imposed by the laws of the Congress of the United States and the State of North Carolina had not been paid and did transport same . . . contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d etc., that his plea of guilty was accepted; and that thereupon the court pronounced judgment that defendant be confined in tbe common jail of Duplin County for a term of eight months, and assigned to work the public roads, etc., the road sentence being \u201csuspended for two years on good behavior, and that he especially obey the intoxicants laws of the State, and pay 'a fine of $15.00 and cost.\u201d\nThe record further shows at the session of General County Court of Duplin County held 6 March, 1944, upon prayer of the solicitor in No. 5892, the court, finding that \u201cdefendant having been this day convicted of possession of materials and apparatus for the purpose of manufacturing whiskey and aiding and abetting in the. manufacture of whiskey in case No. 6208,\u201d and \u201cthat the conditions of suspension of judgment in this case have been violated,\u201d \u201cordered that the defendant be committed to serve the term of eight (8) months heretofore imposed in this case on May 3, 1943.\u201d Defendant gave \u201cnotice of appeal to the Superior Court,\u201d and it appears that in Superior Court the ease was given No. 2788.\nThe record further shows that the Superior Court took cognizance of the case bearing County Court No. 5892, and given Superior Court No. 2788, and, after finding that defendant has willfully violated the terms of the sentence therein, ordered that the judgment of the General County Court is in all respects affirmed, and the Clerk directed to issue a commitment and the defendant be required to serve the eight months sentence, which shall begin at the expiration of the eighteen months sentence this date imposed on the defendant in case No. 2789.\nDefendant excepted and gave formal notice of appeal to Supreme Court.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes and Moody for the State.\nJ. Faison Thomson, F. Wdllcer Stevens, and Scott B. Berlceley for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0736-01", "first_page_order": 782, "last_page_order": 786 }