{ "id": 8627073, "name": "STATE v. WISTER JAMES MOORE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Moore", "decision_date": "1957-12-11", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "368", "last_page": "374", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "247 N.C. 368" } ], "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": "67 S.E. 2d 633", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 474", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623583 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0474-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 S.E. 2d, 825", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 299", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599661 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0299-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.E. 2d, 822", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621263 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S.E. 535", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N.C. 594", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625355 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0594-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 S.E. 603", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N.C. 659", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630901 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0659-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8688595 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/12/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S.E. 2d, 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627207 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S.E. 2d, 536", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623157 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 924", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 746", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619223 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0746-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 2d, 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 229", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629216 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0229-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 S.E. 2d, 273", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 365", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0365-01" ] }, { "cite": "125 S.E. 183", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N.C. 591", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654524 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0591-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 S.E. 480", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 N.C. 793", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273118 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0793-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8696857 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/91/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 N.C. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8696954 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/91/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8684204 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 S.E. 2d, 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631431 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0629-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 724, "char_count": 15426, "ocr_confidence": 0.602, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4933032486070224e-07, "percentile": 0.663433659645794 }, "sha256": "3d8a06d226ec75fb50a4635bdce77345ffccc58e82e471b9d7d0f6ae4a0e1c6b", "simhash": "1:af2c7af99f3510e2", "word_count": 2635 }, "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. WISTER JAMES MOORE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Winborne, C. J.\nIn record on this appeal defendant appellant sets forth twenty-five assignments of error based upon thirty-four exceptions. And in brief filed in this Court the matters brought up are treated under nine headings.\nFIRST: Assignment of error No. 1, relates to exception No. 1 to the court allowing the State to amend the warrant No. 11208 as above indicated. In this connection, \u201cunder our practice, our courts have the authority to amend warrants defective in form and even in substance: Provided the amended warrant does not change the nature of the offense intended to be charged in the original warrant.\u201d G.S. 7-149, Rule 12. Carson v. Doggett, 231 N.C. 629, 58 S.E. 2d, 609. See also to same effect S. v. Cauble, 70 N.C. 62; S. v. Crook, 91 N.C. 536; S. v. Vaughan, 91 N.C. 532; S. v. Yellowday, 152 N.C. 793, 67 S.E. 480; S. v. Johnson, 188 N.C. 591, 125 S.E. 183; S. v. Wilson, 221 N.C. 365, 20 S.E. 2d, 273; S. v. Carpenter, 231 N.C. 229, 56 S.E. 2d, 713; S. v. Wilson, 237 N.C. 746, 75 S.E. 2d 924; S. v. McHone, 243 N.C. 231, 90 S.E. 2d, 536. The case is distinguishable from S. v. Cooke, 246 N.C. 518, 98 S.E. 2d, 885. Hence the exception is not well founded.\nMoreover, in respect to the ninth subdivision of defendant\u2019s brief, pertaining to defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment made in this Court for defect in warrant as amended in No. 11208, the action of the Court in this respect is accordant with holding above as to the amendment.\nSecond: That the court erred in allowing, over objection, \u201cevidence prejudicial to defendant, and which was incompetent and lawfully not admissible in evidence\u201d: (a) assignment of error No. 2 based on exception No. 2, and (b) assignments of error Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 based on exception of like numbers are as follows:\n(a) Exception No. 2 is taken to action of trial court overruling objection to the leading question asked the. highway patrolman \u2014 \u201cNow, state whether or not the defendant admitted he was operating the station wagon there at the time ?\u201d Answer: \u201cYes, sir.\u201d In this connection reference to the case on appeal discloses that the patrolman detailed conversation had by him with defendant about 7:30 p.m., on 6 December, at the hospital, as follows: \u201cFirst of all, I asked Mr. Moore if anyone was with him in his car. He stated that there was not. I asked him if he owned the car, and he stated that he did. When I say \u2018car\u2019 I mean the \u201955 Ford four-door station wagon * * * I asked him for his driver\u2019s license and he stated that they were in the car which had been pulled in by a wrecker, and then I asked him what happened, in his opinion, what happened. At that time he stated that he was going west on the dirt road on his side of the road and somebody ran into him * * *.\u201d This language is virtual admission that he was driving the station wagon, which is admissible in evidence. S. v. Roberts, 12 N.C. 259; S. v. Whitener, 191 N.C. 659, 132 S.E. 603; S. v. Gray, 192 N.C. 594, 135 S.E. 535. Hence the question and answer to which objection relates is proper. Moreover, the objection that it is a leading question is untenable.\n(b) Exceptions 3, 4, 5 and 6 are taken to the ruling of the trial court in permitting the State to show by the highway patrolman that he obtained from Department of Motor Vehicles of the State of North Carolina certified copy of the driver\u2019s license record of Wister James Moore, identified as State\u2019s Exhibit 1, and to offering same in evidence, and'reading in evidence the record relating to driver\u2019s license revocation of Moore as follows:\n\u201cState\u2019s Exhibit 1\nForm 727\nRevised 1-53\nN. C. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES HIGHWAY PATROL OPERATOR LICENSE CHECK\nDate December 7, 1956\nTO:\nState Highway Patrol\nDepartment of Motor Vehicles\nRaleigh, N. C.\nPlease advise if the following subject holds a value operator\u2019s license, or if cancelled, suspended or revoked.\nName (Full Name) Wister James Moore Race White\nSex Male Age 9-30-20\n(Street Address) 115 Erwin Street\n(Post Office) Greensboro, N. C.\n(Patrolman) William F. Clay, PFC\n(Call No.) 369 (Station) Greensboro, N. C.\nThis is to certify the above named subject\nOperator\u2019s\nHolds Chauffeur\u2019s License No. None\nExpired\nIssued Expires\n1 \u2014 License Revoked From 11-10-49 to 11-10-50\n1 \u2014 Revocation Notice served (Date) 11-22-49 (By) Mailed Direct\n1 \u2014 Court Municipal County Court, Greensboro Offense Driving Drunk G. S. 20-17-(2)\n1 \u2014 Dept. Action Revoked One year\n2 \u2014 License Revoked From 2-22-50 To 2-22-53\n2 \u2014 Revocation Notice Served (Date) 3-2-50 (By) Mailed Direct\n2 \u2014 Court Municipal County Court, Greensboro Offense Driving Drunk (2nd Offense) and Driving After License Revoked\n2 \u2014 Dept. Action Revoked Three Years\n3 \u2014 License Revoked From 3-24-50 To Permanent\n3 \u2014 Revocation Notice served (Date) 6-26-50 (By) Mailed Direct\n3 \u2014 Court Municipal Court, Greensboro Offense Driving Drunk (3rd Offense) and Driving After License Revoked\n3 \u2014 Dept. Action Revoked Permanently Date: December 10,1956\nSigned Elton R. Peele\nState Highway Patrol Chief,\nDriver License Division.\nNote: Patrolmen make note of all essential facts concerning status of license at time it is checked, and after receiving report of status of license from Drivers License Division either discard report or obtain warrant and bring indictment if indicated.\n(Department Seal Affixed) .\u201d\nIn this connection it is noted that the statute G.S. 20-42 (b) provides: \u201c(b) The Commissioner and such officers of the Department as he may designate are hereby authorized to prepare under the seal of the Department and deliver upon request a certified copy of any record of the Department, charging a fee of fifty cents (50^) for each document so certified, and every such certified copy shall be admissible in any proceeding in any court in like manner as the original thereof, without further certification. (1937, c. 407, s. 7; 1955, c. 480).\u201d\nThe language of the Exhibit is susceptible of the inference that it is a certified copy of the record of the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles Highway Patrol, signed by a proper official and bearing the seal of the Department, which is \u201cadmissible in any proceeding in any court in like manner as the original thereof, without further certification.\u201d\n(Nevertheless, note is taken of the figures in the record, for instance figures 1, 2 and 3 each appearing 4 times on the left margin presumably relating to first, second and third revocations, and other figures separated by dashes, such as \u201c11-10-49\u201d presumably indicating date of \u201cNovember 10, 1949.\u201d This practice in judicial records ought not to be followed, and it is not approved. A form sufficiently clear to dispense with necessity of interpretation should be adopted by the Department.) Edwards v. Edwards, 235 N.C. 93, 68 S.E. 2d, 822.\nThird: \u201cThat the trial court erred in overruling the defendant\u2019s motions for judgment as of nonsuit on the charge of driving after his license was revoked.\u201d The evidence offered tends to show \u201cthat at the time and place charged (1) defendant was operating a motor vehicle; (2) that he was operating it upon a public highway or road as defined in G.S. 20-6; (3) that his license to operate was at that time lawfully revoked.\u201d Reference to the certified record, Exhibit 1, shows that defendant\u2019s license was revoked for a period of one year on 10 November, 1949; that it was again revoked for a period of three years on 22 February, 1950, and was permanently revoked on 24 March, 1950. Indeed, it is provided in G.S. 20-19 (e) that \u201cWhen a license is revoked because of a third or subsequent conviction for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug, the revocation shall be permanent: Provided, that the Department may, after the expiration of five years, issue a new license upon satisfactory proof that the former licensee has been of good behavior for the past five years, and that his conduct and attitude is such as to entitle him to favorable consideration.\u201d Hence the alleged violation on 6 March, 1950, was necessarily after and while his license was revoked, \u2014 and is sufficient to make out prima facie case. Whether or not a new license had been granted to defendant was a matter of defense. And no such defense was made.\nFourth : That the trial court erred in overruling defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit on the charge of careless and reckless driving. As to it, the evidence tended to show that defendant operating a Ford station wagon came around the curve on his left-hand side of the road with his left wheels in the ditch on that side of the road, and struck the Chevrolet truck operated by the witness Green on his right side of the road, damaging it and inj uring Green. This evidence taken in the light most favorable to the State is sufficient to take the case to the jury, and to support a conviction of reckless driving.\nFifth : That the court erred in its charge to the jury. Assignments of Error No. 9 through No. 18, relating to exceptions Numbers 11 through 27. As to these matters defendant acknowledges in his brief filed in this Court that \u201cthe condemnatory language to which exception is reserved, is identified as contentions of the State.\u201d Such being the status of these exceptions, suffice it to say, ordinarily, as here, any misstatement of the evidence or of contentions by the trial judge in reciting contentions of the State, or of a defendant, must be brought to his attention at the time in order to afford him an opportunity for correction, or else it will be deemed to be waived. S. v. Shackleford, 232 N.C. 299, 59 S.E. 2d, 825; S. v. Brannon, 234 N.C. 474, 67 S.E. 2d 633, and many other cases. Such is the case here.\nSixth: That the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury as to the law pertinent to the offenses charged. It is enough to say that a reading of the charge of the court, as a whole, leads to the conclusion that the challenge is not tenable.\nSeventh and Eighth : That the court erred in overruling motions to set aside the verdict and for new trial in the respective cases. The exceptions here pertain to formal matters, and need no elaboration. The charges are supported by sufficient evidence to justify the verdict rendered by the jury.\nError in the trial below is not made to appear. Hence in the judgments from which appeal is taken there is\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Winborne, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.", "Robert S. Cahoon for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. WISTER JAMES MOORE\n(Filed 11 December, 1957)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 18: Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 15\u2014\nUpon appeal to the superior court from conviction in a municipal court upon a warrant charging operation of a motor vehicle by defendant after his operator\u2019s permit had been permanently revoked, an amendment adding the allegation that the revocation was by the Department of Motor Vehicles by reason of a prior conviction of defendant in the municipal court, held, not to change the nature of the offense charged in the original warrant, G.S. 7-149, Rule 12, and defendant\u2019s exception to the allowance of the amendment and his motion in arrest of judgment are overruled.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 72\u2014\nTestimony of an admission by defendant is competent, and where a witness has detailed a conversation had by him with defendant containing a virtual admission that defendant was operating the vehicle at the time in question, the State may ask the witness to state whether defendant admitted he was operating the vehicle at the time, and objection that it was a leading question is untenable.\n3. Automobiles \u00a7 3\u2014\nIn a prosecution for driving after permanent revocation of license, certified copy of the record of the Department of Motor Vehicles, signed by a proper official and bearing the seal of the Department, and disclosing such revocation, is competent. G.S. 20-42(b). However, the use of figures separated by dashes to indicate dates, such as \u201c11-10-49,\u201d is disapproved.\n4. Automobiles \u00a7 3\u2014\nWhere defendant admits he was driving his automobile on a highway of the State at the time in question, which time was subsequent to the date his license had been permanently revoked as disclosed by certified record of the Department of Motor Vehicles introduced in evidence, the evidence is sufficient to make out a 'prima facie case and overrule nonsuit in a prosecution for driving after revocation of license, it not being incumbent on the State to show that a new license had not been granted, this being a matter of defense.\n5. Automobiles \u00a7 65\u2014\nEvidence that defendant drove his automobile around a curve with his left wheels in the ditch on his left side of the highway, and struck a truck, traveling in the opposite direction on its right side of the road, resulting in damages and injuries, is sufficient to take the case to the jury and support a conviction of reckless driving.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 156\u2014\nOrdinarily, any misstatement in reciting the contentions of the parties must be brought to the court\u2019s attention in time to afford opportunity for correction, or an exception thereto is deemed waived.\nAppeal by defendant from Olive, /., at April 15, 1957, Regular Criminal Term, Greensboro Division, of Guilford.\nCriminal prosecution upon two warrants, issued out of The Municipal County Court, Criminal Division, of Guilford: No. 11208, charging \u201cthat Wister James Moore, on or about the 6th day of December, 1956, with force and arms, at and in Guilford County * * * did unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway, a rural road approximately 9 miles north of Greensboro, North Carolina, after his operator\u2019s permit having been permanently revoked, against the statute\u201d etc., and\nNo. 11209, charging \u201cthat Wister James Moore, on or about the 6th day of December, 1956, with force and arms, at and in Guilford County * * * did unlawfully operate a motor vehicle upon a public highway, 9 miles north of Greensboro, North Carolina, on a rural road in a careless and reckless manner so as to endanger life, limb and property, against the statute\u201d etc.\nIn the Municipal County Court defendant pleaded not guilty as to the charge in each warrant.\nThe cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial, and the court heard evidence in each case, and found defendant guilty in each case, and from judgments pronounced defendant appealed to Superior Court for trial de novo.\nIn Superior Court, defendant again entered a plea of not guilty. And by consent the two cases were consolidated for the purpose of trial.\nThe State then moved to amend the warrant No. 11208 by adding thereto the following: \u201cSaid license having been permanently revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles by reason of the defendant having- been convicted in the Municipal Court of the City of Greensboro on the 24th day of March, 1950.\u201d Objection by defendant was overruled, and defendant excepted. Exception No. 1.\nVerdicts in Superior Court: Guilty as charged.\nJudgments: In No. 11208: \u201cThat the defendant be confined to the common jail of Guilford County for a period of six (6) months to be assigned to work under the supervision of the State Highway and Public Works Commission.\u201d And in No. 11209: \u201cThat the defendant be confined to the common jail of Guilford County for a period of six (6) months to be assigned to work under the supervision of the State Highway Commission.\u201d\nDefendant excepted to each judgment, and appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, assigning error.\nAttorney General Patton, Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.\nRobert S. Cahoon for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0368-01", "first_page_order": 410, "last_page_order": 416 }