{
  "id": 8628550,
  "name": "STATE v. TOM SIMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sims",
  "decision_date": "1958-02-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "751",
  "last_page": "752",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "247 N.C. 751"
    }
  ],
  "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": 164,
    "char_count": 2359,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3241283565180827
    },
    "sha256": "b4f698d0d457232a547dbc143f94fbbf440303194ebd26ed3719a0a1c2bc8eac",
    "simhash": "1:a33085d39e490290",
    "word_count": 389
  },
  "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. TOM SIMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam :\nDestruction of personal property is not a crime. It becomes so only when the injury is wanton and wilful. G.S. 14-160. The Attorney General concedes error. Judgment on the second count in the warrant is arrested and the defendant is discharged on that count. The record fails to disclose any reason why the judgment on the assault charge should be disturbed.\nJudgment on the second count in the warrant is\nArrested.\nIn the judgment on the assault charge there is\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam :"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Patton, Attorney General and Claude L. Love, Assistant Attorney General for the State",
      "Hamrick & Hamrick, By: J. Nat Hamrick for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. TOM SIMS.\n(Filed 26 February, 1958.)\nProperty \u00a7 3\u2014\nA warrant charging defendant with destruction of personal property charges no offense, since the destruction of personal property is not a crime unless it is done wantonly and wilfully. G.S. 14-160.\nAppeal by defendant from Campbell, J., November, 1957 Term, Rutherford Superior Court.\nThis criminal prosecution originated in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Rutherford County upon a warrant containing two counts: (1) The defendant did unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously assault affiant (Harris) with a deadly weapon, to-wit: a knife, with intent to kill, etc. (2) \u201cDid destroy personal property valued at approximately $300.00 contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d etc.\nAt the hearing the recorder found (1) probable cause and bound the defendant to the Superior Court on the first count, and (2) a verdict of guilty and imposed a prison sentence on the second count, from which the defendant appealed to the Superior Court.\nIn the Superior Court the grand jury returned a bill of indictment on the charge of felonious assault. Upon pleas of not guilty, the charge in the indictment and in the second count in the warrant were tried together. The jury returned the following verdict: \u201cGuilty of simple assault and destruction of personal property.\u201d On the assault charge the defendant was given a jail sentence of 30 days. On the charge of destroying personal property, the defendant made a motion in arrest of judgment on the ground that the warrant failed to charge and the jury failed to find that the destruction was wanton and wilful. The court overruled the motion, imposed a prison sentence, to which the defendant excepted and from which he appealed.\nGeorge B. Patton, Attorney General and Claude L. Love, Assistant Attorney General for the State\nHamrick & Hamrick, By: J. Nat Hamrick for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0751-01",
  "first_page_order": 793,
  "last_page_order": 794
}