{
  "id": 8625649,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM DALTON WOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wood",
  "decision_date": "1957-11-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "125",
  "last_page": "127",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "247 N.C. 125"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3593,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08,
      "percentile": 0.32864194012855574
    },
    "sha256": "b50b92425192065bd9113458308de33ac0e436890801335b2dc53564977cc340",
    "simhash": "1:6065d17f979783e3",
    "word_count": 589
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:17.459804+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM DALTON WOOD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe question is: Did the court err in denying defendant\u2019s motions for judgment as of nonsuit, and in failing to direct a verdict of not guilty as to the charges in the warrants.\nThe case on appeal discloses stipulation between counsel for defendant and the Solicitor of the State (1) that on 5 June, 1957, defendant\u2019s operator\u2019s license had been suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles for the State, and had been revoked permanently; and (2) that prior to said date defendant had been convicted three times for driving motor vehicles upon the public highways of the State of North Carolina while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. And defendant, as witness for himself, testified that he was \u201cpretty drunk at the time * * * was pretty high * * * and appreciably under the influence of intoxicating liquor,\u201d \u2014 though he denied that he was driving on public highway.\nIn the light of this stipulation, and testimony of witnesses for the State and testimony of defendant, taken in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence is of sufficient probative force to support the verdict rendered by the jury.\nHence in judgment from which appeal is taken, there is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the state.",
      "Carl E. Gaddy, Jr., Daniel F. Lovelace for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM DALTON WOOD\n(Filed 6 November, 1957)\nAutomobiles \u00a7\u00a7 3, 72\u2014\nThe stipulations between counsel for defendant and the solicitor, together with defendant\u2019s admissions and the State\u2019s evidence, considered in the light most favorable to the State, held sufficient to support conviction of defendant of driving- on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and operating a motor vehicle on a public highway after permanent revocation of driver\u2019s license.\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, J., at July 8, 1957 Regularly Assigned Criminal Court, of Wake.\nCriminal prosecution upon three warrants issued out of Recorder\u2019s Court of Garner, North Carolina, charging defendant with these offenses on 5 June, 1957:\nIn Number 7055, \u201cdriving an automobile on the public highway of North Carolina while under the influence of some intoxicating liquor, this being the fourth offense\u201d;\nIn Number 7056, \u201coperate a motor vehicle on a public highway in North Carolina during the time his driver\u2019s license had been permanently revoked\u201d; and\nIn Number 7057, \u201cdisplay or cause to be displayed and have in his possession an operator\u2019s license, knowing the same to have been revoked, suspended or altered.\u201d\nUpon trial in said Recorder\u2019s Court, defendant pleaded not guilty as to each charge, but was adjudged guilty as to each. And from judgments pronounced thereon, defendant appealed to Superior Court of Wake County.\nIn Superior Court the cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial, and came on for trial. Again defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges preferred in the respective warrants.\nAnd upon trial motions of defendant were aptly made for nonsuit as to each charge. The trial court allowed the motion as to the charge set forth in case Number 7057, but overruled the motions as to the charges in cases Numbers 7055 and 7056. And as to these two charges the jury returned verdict that the defendant is guilty on both counts.\nThereupon the judgment of the court is that the defendant be confined in the common jail of Wake County for a term of one year, and assigned to work the public roads under the supervision of the State Prison Department. Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, and assigns error.\nAttorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the state.\nCarl E. Gaddy, Jr., Daniel F. Lovelace for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0125-01",
  "first_page_order": 167,
  "last_page_order": 169
}