{ "id": 8622289, "name": "STATE v. JOHN BANGLE CORL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Corl", "decision_date": "1959-05-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "262", "last_page": "265", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "250 N.C. 262" } ], "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": "182 S.E. 483", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 769", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617603 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0769-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 S.E. 2d 101", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219583 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0270-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 S.E. 2d 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "237 N.C. 604", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616547 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/237/0604-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623766 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 608", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615959 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 544", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 S.E. 2d 223", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 424", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615840 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0424-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 408, "char_count": 7058, "ocr_confidence": 0.446, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.730560313889834e-07, "percentile": 0.705324518919829 }, "sha256": "f4ca524499bd6b87f76d4fc5d77449b22209fc144d31fe8d56549ad0a57c4aa3", "simhash": "1:73e1ed8b3b2a0629", "word_count": 1201 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:40.326881+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JOHN BANGLE CORL." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, J.\nThe State offered evidence: the defendant none. The State\u2019s evidence was amply sufficient to cany the case to the jury in 'both 'eases, and to'uphold the jury\u2019s verdict of guilty as charged in each case. Defendant states in his brief: \u201cThis appellant in good conscience cannot argue that there was not sufficient evidence to make a case for the jury, therefore, Exceptions 6 and 7 (motions for judgment of nonsuit) are abandoned.\u201d\nThis appears in the Record: \u201cWhen the jury was impaneled the Judge summarily discharged seven jurors who had been excused by the State and defendant.\u201d To this the defendant did not except. Nothing else in respect to this appears in the Record, except that the defendant in his assignments of error assigns this discharge of seven jurors as error, and states this is his Exception Number 1. In- the first headnote in our Reports in Barnette v. Woody, 242 N.C. 424, 88 S.E. 2d 223, this is said: \u201cExceptions which appear nowhere in the record except under the assignments of error are ineffectual, since an assignment of error must be supported by exception duly noted.\u201d Further, in defendant\u2019s 'brief no reason or argument is. stated, or authority cited in support of this assignment of \u2022error, .as is required by Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 221 N.C. 544, 563; S. v. Hart, 226 N.C. 200, 37 S.E. 2d 487. Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., defines summarily thus: \u201cWithout ceremony or delay, short or concise.\u201d In addition, it does not appear that defendant was prejudiced by the court\u2019s action. This assignment of error is without merit.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error Number 2 is to the court permitting a State Highway Patrolman to testify that he had a certified copy of the official record of the Drivers License Division of 'the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles, and that it was certified and under seal. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error Number 3 is to the court\u2019s ruling permitting the State to introduce in evidence \u201cthat part of the certified copy which states that the driver\u2019s license of John Bangle Corl, Route I, Concord, was revoked by the State Department of Motor Vehicles two additional years to prior revocation, from October 31, 1957, to October 31, 1959. Patrolman C. L. Creech. Served on May 30, 1954.\u201d This assignment of error is overruled on authority of the opinion written for the Court by Denny, J., in S. v. Corl, filed this day, ante p. 252, 108 S.E. 2d 608.\nDefendan>t\u2019s assignment of error Number 7 is to -the court\u2019s failing to instruct the jury in accordance with the requirements of G.S. 1-180. This assignment of error is untenable. It is a broadside exception. S. v. Webster, 218 N.C. 692, 12 S.E. 2d 272; S. v. Triplett, 237 N.C. 604, 75 S.E. 2d 517; Tillman v. Talbert, 244 N.C. 270, 93 S.E. 2d 101.\nAll defendant\u2019s assignments of error are overruled. However, the oases must go back for proper sentences..\nIn the Record, the speeding case appears as Number 7069, and the driving after revocation of license case appears as Number 7070.\nThe sentence in Case Number 7069 is imprisonment for 60 days, t\u00f3 run consecutive with, and not concurrent with, prison sentences pronounced this day in oases numbered 6711, 6712, 7070, 7268 and 7270. The sentence in Case Number 7070 is imprisonment for 15 months, to run consecutive with, and not concurrent with, prison sentences pronounced this day in cases numbered 6711, 6712, 7069, 7268 and 7270.\nAppeals in all of these cases are now pending in this Court. In reference to all these cases, Denny, J., said in S. v. Corl, supra, in which cases numbered 6711 and 6712 were consolidated for trial: \u201cIn none of the judgments was it specified in what order the respective sentences were to be served.\u201d Upon authority of the Court\u2019s opinion written by Denny, J., in that case, it is ordered that the sentence in each case here be vacated, and that each case be remanded to the Superior Court of Cabarrus County for proper sentences upon the jury\u2019s verdict.\nRemanded for Proper Sentences.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, and Lucius W. Pullen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Robert L. Warren for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN BANGLE CORL.\n(Filed 6 May, 1959.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 154\u2014\nAn assignment of error to the action of the count in discharging cer-itain jurors cannot be considered when the record fails to show any exception bo the action of the court, since an assignment of error must he supported by an exception duly noted.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 159\nAn assignment of error mot discussed in defendant\u2019s brief is deemed abandoned. Hule of Practice in the 'Supreme Court No. 28.\n3. Jury \u00a7 11\u2014\nAn objection to the action of the court in summarily discharging seven jurors who had been excused by the State and defendant, is untenable, it not appealing that defendant was prejudiced thereby.\n4. Automobiles \u00a7 3\u2014\nIn a prosecution of defendant for operating a motor vehicle on the public highways after his operator\u2019s license had been revoked or during a period it had been suspended, the 'State may introduce that part'of the certified record of the Department of Motor Vehicles showing that defendant\u2019s operator\u2019s license had been revoked and that such revocation was in 'effect at the time the alleged offense was committed, and further, an exception to the 'testimony of a patrolman that .he had the certified copy of the official record under seal, is feckless.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 156\u2014\nAn assignment of error that the court failed to instruct the jury in accordance with the provisions of G.S. 1-180, is ineffectual as a. broadside assignment of error.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 133, 169\u2014\nWhere cumulative sentences are imposed upon conviction for separate offenses, the judgment should specify in wha-t order the respective sentences are to be served, and when the judgment provides only that each sentence should run consecutively and not concurrently with the other sentences, 'the cause must be -remanded for proper sentences.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnston, J., October Term, 1958, of CabaRbus.\nThese are two eases against the defendant that came to the Superior Court -by appeal of the defendant from ,the oou-nty recorder\u2019s court of Cabarrus County. The warrant in eaeh ease charges the defendant on 1 April 1958 with a violation of a statute regulating the operation of automobiles on the public highways of the State, both misdemeanors, to wit: one, the unlawful operation of an 'automobile upon the public highways of the State at a rate of speed of over 100 miles an hour, a violation of G.S. 20-141, -and the other with unlawfully operating an automobile upon the public highways of the State while his operator\u2019s license to operate a motor vehicle was revoked, a violation of G.S. 20-28.\nIn.the Superior Court the two oases were consolidated for trial. S. v. Waters, 208 N.C. 769, 182 S.E. 483. Defendant pleaded Not Guilty. Verdict of the jury: Guilty as charged in each case.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment in each case, defendant appeals.\nMalcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, and Lucius W. Pullen, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nRobert L. Warren for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0262-01", "first_page_order": 302, "last_page_order": 305 }