{ "id": 8610747, "name": "STATE v. RAY YOUNG RUMFELT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rumfelt", "decision_date": "1955-01-14", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "375", "last_page": "379", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "241 N.C. 375" } ], "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": "80 S.E. 2d 481", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 659", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628183 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0659-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595137 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.E. 2d 794", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 96", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621295 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0096-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 S.E. 158", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "126 N.C. 689", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661637 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/126/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E. 570", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "145 N.C. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253932 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "p. 540" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/145/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 N.C. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274473 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/19/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N.C. 541", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278784 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/85/0541-01" ] }, { "cite": "165 S.E. 339", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "203 N.C. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602499 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/203/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S.E. 398", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "143 N.C. 683", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/143/0683-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 N.W. 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "55 Minn. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 8876835 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/minn/55/0183-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 U.S. 603", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 5628825 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "611" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/102/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 U.S. 398", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3533347 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "402" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/128/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 U.S. 657", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3563904 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/146/0657-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 54", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622191 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0019-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 600, "char_count": 11055, "ocr_confidence": 0.491, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1082784834997148e-07, "percentile": 0.5700876769263382 }, "sha256": "7655dd478b3d5a6374d917b05049f19f8ff67f284cd692d59fdbcfc71acb3bec", "simhash": "1:745f9f2b8b2ef509", "word_count": 1910 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:40.140494+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. RAY YOUNG RUMFELT." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Parker, J.\nThe defendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to allow his motion for judgment of nonsuit made when the State rested its case. The defendant contends that G.S. 20-162.1 prescribes that \u201cany person convicted pursuant to this section shall be subject to a penalty of $1.00,\u201d and therefore does not set out a criminal act triable in the criminal courts of the State; but in specific words imposes a penalty to be recovered in a civil action.\nThe amended warrant upon which the defendant was tried and convicted by a jury in the Superior Court charges a violation of G.S. 20-162. G.S. 20-176(a) provides that \u201cit shall be unlawful and constitute a misdemeanor for any person to violate\u201d G.S. 20-162; and (b) states \u201cunless another penalty is in this article or by the laws of this State provided, every person convicted of a misdemeanor for the violation of any provision of this article shall be punished by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars ($100.00) or by imprisonment in the county or municipal jail for not more than sixty days, or by both such fine and imprisonment: Provided, that upon conviction for the following offenses . . . violation of 20-162 . . . the punishment therefor shall be a fine not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) and not less than ten dollars ($10.00), or imprisonment not to exceed thirty days for each offense.\u201d\nIn reversing a conviction in the Superior Court in S. v. Scoggin, 236 N.C. 19, 72 S.E. 2d 54, this Court said in 1952: \u201c. . . we should not, in the absence of a legislative rule of evidence to the contrary, consider mere ownership of a motor vehicle, parked in violation of a city ordinance, and no more, sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction . . .\u201d\nIt seems apparent that as a result of the decision in the Scoggin Case, and the language quoted above therefrom, the General Assembly at its 1953 Session enacted the statute which is now G.S. 20-162.1 and which is captioned, \"Prima Facie Rule of Evidence for Enforcement of Parking Regulations,\u201d to establish \u201ca legislative rule of evidence\u201d in respect to \u201ccases concerned solely with violation of statutes or ordinances limiting, prohibiting or otherwise regulating the parking of automobiles or other vehicles upon public streets, highways, or other public places.\u201d A violation of G.S. 20-162 presents the type of case to which the prima facie rule of evidence set forth in G.S. 20-162.1 is applicable.\nG.S. 20-176 in plain and exact words declares that a violation of G.S. 20-162 is a misdemeanor and prescribes the punishment, which is greater than that imposed in G.S. 20-162.1. G.S. 20-162.1 creates no criminal offense, but prescribes that when the prima facie rule of evidence therein set forth is relied upon by the State in a criminal prosecution, the punishment shall be a penalty of one dollar. There can be no doubt that this action is a criminal action prosecuted by the State to punish the defendant for a violation of its criminal law. When we consider the words \u201cfine\u201d and \u201cpenalty\u201d as used in G.S. 20-176, and the word \u201cpenalty\u201d as used in G.S. 20-162.1, it is clear that the General Assembly considered and used the word \u201cpenalty\u201d in G.S. 20-162.1 as equivalent to the word \u201cfine,\u201d and imposed the payment of one dollar for a violation of its criminal law. This one dollar was exacted of the defendant who was found guilty by a jury of a misdemeanor.\nThe word \u201cpenalty\u201d has many different shades of meaning. In Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 36 L. Ed. 1123, it is said: \u201cIn the municipal law of England and America, the words 'penal\u2019 and 'penalty\u2019 have been used in various senses. Strictly and primarily, they denote punishment, whether corporal or pecuniary, imposed and enforced by the State, for a crime or offenses against its laws. United States v. Reisinger, 128 U.S. 398, 402 (32:480, 481) ; United States v. Chouteau, 102 U.S. 603, 611 (26 :246, 249).\u201d See also Weideman v. State, 55 Minn. 183, 56 N.W. 688; 23 Am. Jur., Forfeitures and Penalties, Sec. 27.\n\u201cThe term 'penalty\u2019 in its broadest sense includes all punishment of whatever kind, and in the broad sense it is a generic term which includes fines as well as all other kinds of punishment.\u201d 36 C.J.S., Fines, p. 781.\nWe said in S. v. Addington, 143 N.C. 683, 57 S.E. 398: \u201cIn ordinary legal phraseology, it is said, the term 'fine\u2019 means a sum of money exacted of a person guilty of a misdemeanor, or a crime, the amount of which may be fixed by law or left in the discretion of the Court, while a penalty is a sum of money exacted by way of punishment for doing some act which is prohibited, or omitting to do something which is required to be done. (Citing authorities).\u201d\nS. v. Briggs, 203 N.C. 158, 165 S.E. 339, relied upon by the defendant is distinguishable. The defendant was tried in a criminal action for violation of a statute which read: \u201c 'That no other person than said weighers shall weigh cotton or peanuts sold in said town or township, under a penalty of $10.00 for each and every offense, said penalty to be paid by tbe buyer and applied to tbe school fund of said county, upon connection (conviction), of tbe offender before any justice of tbe peace of said county.\u2019 \u201d Tbis Court beld that that statute did not create a criminal act. In tbe instant case G.S. 20-176 prescribes that a violation of G.S. 20-162 is a misdemeanor.\nS. v. Snuggs, 85 N.C. 541, is the ease of an indictment for illegally issuing a marriage license \u2014 tbe defendant being a Register of Deeds. Tbe statute prescribed tbat a person wbo violated tbe statute \u201cshall forfeit and pay $200 to any person wbo shall sue for tbe same.\u201d Tbis Court rightly beld tbat tbe statute created tbe offense, fixed tbe penalty, and prescribed tbe method of enforcement, and tbat tbe indictment charged no indictable offense. Tbe Snuggs Case is not in point. To like effect see S. v. Loftin, 19 N.C. 31. See also S. v. R. R., 145 N.C. 495, p. 540, 59 S.E. 570.\nWe said in Board of Education v. Henderson, 126 N.C. 689, 36 S.E. 158 : \u201cTo our minds there is a clear distinction between a fine and penalty. A \u2018fine\u2019 is tbe sentence pronounced by tbe court for a violation of tbe criminal law of tbe State; while a \u2018penalty\u2019 is tbe amount recovered\u2014 tbe penalty prescribed for a violation of tbe statute law of tbe State or tbe ordinance of a town. Tbis penalty is recovered in a civil action of debt.\u201d Finance Co. v. Holder, 235 N.C. 96, 68 S.E. 2d 794 (counterclaim for recovery of penalty for alleged usury) ; and Smoke Mount Industries, Inc., v. Fisher, 224 N.C. 72, 29 S.E. 2d 128 (counterclaim for overtime under Federal Fair Labor Standards Act) are types of civil actions to recover penalties. The judgment of tbe lower court tbat the defendant pay a penalty of one dollar was a sentence pronounced by tbe court for tbe violation of a statute, which violation is specifically declared by tbe General Assembly to be a misdemeanor.\nTbe trial court correctly denied tbe defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nThe defendant\u2019s only other assignment of error is tbat tbe trial court erred in taxing tbe defendant with tbe costs.\nArt. IV, Sec. 1, of tbe North Carolina Constitution, prescribes tbat \u201cevery action prosecuted by tbe people of tbe State as a party, against a person charged with a public offense for tbe punishment of tbe same, shall be termed a criminal action.\u201d\nG.S. 1-5 reads in part: \u201cA criminal action is \u2014 1. An action prosecuted by tbe State as a party, against a person charged with a public offense, for tbe punishment thereof.\u201d\nTbe defendant was convicted of a violation of G.S. 20-162, which violation constituted a misdemeanor by virtue of G.S. 20-176.\nG-.S. 6-45 prescribes that \u201cevery person convicted of an offense, or confessing himself guilty, or submitting to the court, shall pay the costs of the prosecution.\u201d\nThis assignment of error is without merit.\nThe charge of the court is not in the Beeord, and is presumed to be free from error. S. v. Harrison, 239 N.C. 659, 80 S.E. 2d 481.\nIn the trial below we find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Parker, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Harry McMullan, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Vaughan S. Winborne and Samuel Pretlow Winborne for Defendant, Appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. RAY YOUNG RUMFELT.\n(Filed 14 January, 1955.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 35\u2014\nTbe \u2022prima facie rule of evidence created by G.S. 20-162.1 is applicable to {prosecutions for violation of G.S. 20-162.\n2. Same\u2014\nG.S. 20-162.1 creates no criminal offense, but prescribes that when tbe prima facie rule of evidence therein set forth is relied upon by the State in a criminal prosecution, the punishment shall be a penalty of $1.00.\n3. Same\u2014\nThe violation of G.S. 20-162 by parking within 25 feet from the intersection of curb lines at an intersection of highways within a municipality is a misdemeanor, G.S. 20-176, notwithstanding that the prima facie rule of evidence created by G.S. 20-162.1 is invoked. The word \u201cpenalty\u201d is used in the latter statute in the broad sense of punishment and not in the sense of a penalty recoverable in a civil action.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 65\u2014\nWhere defendant is convicted of an offense constituting a crime or misdemeanor he is properly charged with the costs.\nAppeal by defendant from Frizzelle, J., November 1954 Term of Wake.\nCriminal prosecution upon a warrant charging the defendant with a violation of G.S. 20-162, relating to the parking of an automobile within twenty-five feet from the intersection of curb lines at an intersection of highways within the Town of Cary.\nThis action originated in the Becorder\u2019s Court of Cary, Meredith and House Creek Townships, in which court the defendant was adjudged guilty and ordered to pay the costs. He appealed to the Superior Court, where he pleaded not guilty and was tried de novo by a jury upon the original warrant, as amended.\nThe State offered evidence tending to show the following facts: H. S. Highway No. 1 runs east-west through the Town of Cary, and is known as Chatham Street. Academy Street crosses Chatham Street. Both streets have built up curb lines which intersect. About 1:56 p.m. on 23 October 1954 L. E. Midgette, Chief of Police of the Town of Cary, found a 1949 DeSoto Automobile bearing State license X-61128 parked on the North side of Chatham Street about 15 feet from the intersection of the curb lines of Academy and Chatham Streets. Both of these streets are hard surfaced and main streets in the town \u2014 regularly used and maintained by the town.\nBy agreement between the Solicitor and counsel for the defendant the State introduced in evidence a certificate from the State Department of Revenue showing that the defendant was the registered owner of the automobile with State license N. C. X-61128. \u201cIt was stipulated and admitted by the defendant that the automobile in question Avas OAvned by and registered in the name of the defendant.\u201d\nThe defendant offered no evidence.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty. Judgment: \u201cThat the defendant pay a penalty of $1.00 and the costs.\u201d\nDefendant excepted and appealed, assigning error.\nHarry McMullan, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nVaughan S. Winborne and Samuel Pretlow Winborne for Defendant, Appellant." }, "file_name": "0375-01", "first_page_order": 413, "last_page_order": 417 }