{
  "id": 12166299,
  "name": "STATE v. MACK WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1948-11-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "415",
  "last_page": "416",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "229 N.C. 415"
    }
  ],
  "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": "176 S. E. 760",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C. 276",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625371
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0276-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "127 S. E. 248",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 N. C. 349",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654245
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/189/0349-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 S. E. 613",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N. C. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628906
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N. C. 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275278
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/86/0650-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S. E. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "133 N. C. 755",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659603
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/133/0755-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 S. E. 593",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 N. C. 621",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661557
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/136/0621-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N. C. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8598167
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0054-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 272,
    "char_count": 3363,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.7101564711248924e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3584541029226028
    },
    "sha256": "cdafa0083da675e866a3b828f5306cfd9908bfff1412600c4cf2a73b91201e5d",
    "simhash": "1:25e0c7345678a5db",
    "word_count": 587
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:16:54.231798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. MACK WILLIAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe principal question for decision is whether the court was justified in declining to submit the issue of former acquittal to the jury. The position of the trial court is supported by the apposite authorities. S. v. Davis, 223 N. C. 54, 25 S. E. (2) 164, and cases cited.\nThe plea of former jeopardy, to be good, must be grounded on the \u201csame offense,\u201d both in law and in fact. S. v. Hankins, 136 N. C. 621, 48 S. E. 593; S. v. Taylor, 133 N. C. 755; 46 S. E. 5; S. v. Nash, 86 N. C. 650. Here, there is a difference, both in law and in fact, between the former charge of manslaughter and the present indictment. S. v. Midgett, 214 N. C. 107, 198 S. E. 613; S. v. Malpass, 189 N. C. 349, 127 S. E. 248. Hence, the trial court was justified in holding as a matter of law that the defendant\u2019s plea could not be sustained.\nThe cases of S. v. Bell, 205 N. C. 225, 171 S. E. 50, and S. v. Clemmons, 207 N. C. 276, 176 S. E. 760, and the principles they illustrate, are not applicable to the facts of the instant record.\nAs the trial was free from reversible error, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.",
      "W. A. Allen, Jr., and Allen & Allen for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MACK WILLIAMS.\n(Filed 3 November, 1948.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 21\u2014\nIn a prosecution for hit and run driving, the trial court properly refuses to submit an issue of former acquittal based upon a prior prosecution for involuntary manslaughter arising out of the same collision, since the offenses are different, both in law and in fact, and therefore the plea of former jeopardy is inapposite as a matter of law.\nAppeal by defendant from Burneij, J., April Term, 1948, of Lewoir.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with \u201chit- and-run-driving\u201d resulting in death of Lee Graves in violation of G.S. 20-166.\nThe accident in which the deceased was killed occurred about 4 o\u2019clock in the afternoon of 19 December, 1946, on Highway No. 258, three miles north of Kinston. The deceased was driving a 1942 Pontiac; the defendant a 1939 Oldsmobile. The Oldsmobile was driven into the side of the Pontiac, causing injury and death. On the night of the following day the defendant was apprehended and charged with involuntary manslaughter. Lie was acquitted of this charge at the September Term, 1947, Lenoir Superior Court.\nThereafter, at the October Term, 1947, Lenoir Superior Court, the present bill was returned by the grand jury in which the defendant is charged with willfully and feloniously leaving the scene of the accident without rendering assistance or disclosing his identity in violation of the \u201chit-and-run\u201d statute.\nWhen the case was called for trial, and after the jury had been selected and impaneled, the defendant entered a plea of former jeopardy or former acquittal and tendered issue to that effect for determination before entering upon the prosecution.\nAfter hearing the defendant\u2019s evidence the court held as a matter of law that his plea of former acquittal was not good and declined to submit the issue to the jury. To this ruling the defendant preserved exception, and assigns same as error.\nVerdict: Guilty as charged.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison for not less than 2\u00bd nor more than 3\u00bd years.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nW. A. Allen, Jr., and Allen & Allen for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0415-01",
  "first_page_order": 469,
  "last_page_order": 470
}