{
  "id": 8626254,
  "name": "STATE v. ERNEST ROOSEVELT ST. CLAIR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. St. Clair",
  "decision_date": "1957-11-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "228",
  "last_page": "229",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "247 N.C. 228"
    }
  ],
  "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": "246 N.C. 680",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628148
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0680-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S.E. 2d, 840",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625313
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0183-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2544,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033790000884222
    },
    "sha256": "6e175f7861c07a39430df796c39ade3ff8dfbdcee361538e00386d924d78af6b",
    "simhash": "1:1c62d36b15fb05db",
    "word_count": 431
  },
  "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. ERNEST ROOSEVELT ST. CLAIR"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Winborne, C. J.:\nBy reference to the opinion on appeal of this case reported in 246 N.C. 183, 97 S.E. 2d, 840, no error was found in the matters to which assignments of error relate. However, in the statement of the case, paragraph 4, on which the opinion was made to rest, the judgment of the Recorder\u2019s Court of Cabarrus County as shown in addendum to the record, was inadvertently referred to, instead of the judgment of the Superior Court \u201cthat the defendant pay fine of $100 and cost; and that he be not convicted of a similar offense for a period of 12 months,\u201d entered at the October 1956 Term, \u2014 and pursuant thereto, in the last paragraph of the opinion, the cause was remanded for proper judgment on verdict rendered.\nIn this connection the Court holds that the judgment of Superior Court that the defendant pay fine of $100 and cost is a final judgment. S. v. Griffin, 246 N.C. 680, _. The super-added provision is merely surplusage. Consequently the order remanding the cause to Superior Court of Cabarrus County for judgment, and the judgment rendered pursuant thereto at the August 1957 Term of Superior Court of said County are hereby striken out. And the original opinion as amended herein will be, and is upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Winborne, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.",
      "Llewellyn & Green, Marshall B. Sherrin, John R. Boger, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ERNEST ROOSEVELT ST. CLAIR\n(Filed 20 November, 1957)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 135, 141\u2014\nA judgment that defendant pay the costs and a fine in a stipulated amount is a final judgment, and further provision in the judgment that defendant not be convicted of a similar offense for a period of twelve months is merely surplusage.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 169\u2014\nWhere it appears that on a prior appeal, there was no error in the trial, but through inadvertence the cause was remanded for final judgment when in fact the judgment entered in the superior court, as distinguished from that entered in the recorder\u2019s court, was a final judgment, upon subsequent appeal from the judgment entered after remand, that judgment will be stricken and the original judgment of the superior court declared in effect.\nAppeal by defendant from Rousseau, J., at August 1957 Term, of Cabarrus.\nCriminal prosecution upon a warrant issued in the County Recorder\u2019s Court of Cabarrus County, as the record and addendum to record show, charging defendant with operation of a motor vehicle upon public highway while under the influence of intoxicants in violation of G.S. 20-138.\nAttorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.\nLlewellyn & Green, Marshall B. Sherrin, John R. Boger, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0228-01",
  "first_page_order": 270,
  "last_page_order": 271
}