{
  "id": 8621583,
  "name": "STATE v. HELEN STEVENS and MILLARD STEVENS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stevens",
  "decision_date": "1960-04-06",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "331",
  "last_page": "333",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "252 N.C. 331"
    }
  ],
  "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": "52 S.E. 2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629576
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0272-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S.E. 775",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N.C. 867",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273280
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0867-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 S.E. 2d 882",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607213
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 77",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602952
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 S.E. 2d 698",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 305",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607036
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0305-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623843
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/236/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 S.E. 2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618888
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S. E. 716",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N.C. 52",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221565
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0052-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 S.E. 2d 79",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631374
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0605-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 3893,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.532,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.906875948172323e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7310123099840956
    },
    "sha256": "c93a4baf602ab54f30f7bfecaf257a251d505635a13d8aa00332b4bf4564ba02",
    "simhash": "1:83b8e85e249426fa",
    "word_count": 699
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:30:54.749131+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. HELEN STEVENS and MILLARD STEVENS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DeNNY, J.\nThe defendants assign as error the failure of the court below to dismiss as of nonsuit at the close of all the State\u2019s evidence.\nOrdinarily, when evidence is introduced by the State after a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere, it is introduced for the purpose of determining what punishment should be imposed and not for the purpose of determining the guilt or innocence of the pleader. S. v. Shepherd, 230 N.C. 605, 55 S.E. 2d 79; S. v. Crump, 209 N.C. 52, 182 S. E. 716.\nMoreover, the law does not sanction a conditional plea of nolo con-tendere. S. v. Horne, 234 N.C. 115, 66 S.E. 2d 665; S. v. Thomas, 236 N.C. 196, 72 S.E. 2d 525; S. v. McIntyre, 238 N.C. 305, 77 S.E. 2d 698. Therefore, when a defendant enters a plea of nolo contendere and such plea is accepted by the State, the court is clothed with the same authority to impose judgment as if such defendant had been convicted by a jury or had entered a plea of guilty. S. v. Stone, 245 N.C. 42, 95 S.E. 2d 77; Mintz v. Scheldt, 241 N.C. 268, 84 S.E. 2d 882.\nThe second and third assignments of error challenge the validity of the judgments entered below. The defendants contend that the judgments are void; that the law prescribes a sentence not in excess of twelve months for larceny from the person, citing S. v. Brown, 150 N.C. 867, 64 S.E. 775.\nThe last cited case states, \u201cLarceny from the person, regardless of the value of the property, is neither a petty misdemeanor nor a felony, the punishment for which can not exceed one year, under section 3506 of the Revisal. The punishment for such offense, under sections 3500 and 3506, may be as much as ten years in the State\u2019s Prison.\u201d\nThe appellants have clearly misconstrued the language on which they are relying. Section 3506 of the Revisal, now G.S. 14-72, clearly points out that \u201cif the larceny is from the person\u201d the limitation in the statute does not apply. In the instant case the larceny was from the person, in the sum of $104.00. Therefore, as pointed out in S. v. Brown, supra, larceny from the person in any amount is punishable under section 3500 of the Revisal (now G.S. 14-70) and section 3506 of the Revisal (now G.S. 14-72) for as much as ten years in the State\u2019s Prison. Cf. S. v. Surles, 230 N.C. 272, 52 S.E. 2d 880.\nThese assignments of error are without merit and each of them is overruled.\nThe rulings of the court below and the judgments imposed will be upheld.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DeNNY, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Hooper for the State.",
      "J. H. Whicker, Sr., for defendants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HELEN STEVENS and MILLARD STEVENS.\n(Filed 6 April, 1960.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 25\u2014\nAn assignment of error to the refusal of the court to dismiss the prosecution as of nonsuit is inapposite where the defendant has entered a plea of nolo contendere, since the law does not sanction a conditional plea of nolo contendere, and, upon acceptance of the plea, the court is clothed' with the same authority to impose judgment as if defendant had been convicted by a jury or had entered a plea of guilty, and the introduction of evidence is ordinarily for the sole purpose of determining what punishment should be imposed.\n2. Larceny \u00a7 10\u2014\nLarceny from the person in any amount is punishable for as much as ten years in the State\u2019s prison. G.S. 14-72.\nAppeal by defendants from Sink, Emergency Judge, November Term, 1959, of Wilices.\nThis is a criminal action in which the defendants entered a plea of nolo contendere of larceny from the person, upon a bill of indictment charging them with the larceny of $104.00 in cash.\nThe defendant Millard Stevens was sentenced to the State\u2019s Prison for a term of not less than three nor more than eight years. The defendant Helen Stevens was sentenced to the Women\u2019s Division of the State\u2019s Prison for a period of not less than three nor more than five years.\nFrom these judgments the defendants appeal, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Hooper for the State.\nJ. H. Whicker, Sr., for defendants."
  },
  "file_name": "0331-01",
  "first_page_order": 371,
  "last_page_order": 373
}