{ "id": 8623494, "name": "STATE v. EMANUEL \"SHUG\" BROWN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Brown", "decision_date": "1960-10-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "195", "last_page": "197", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "253 N.C. 195" } ], "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": "94 N.C. 920", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652467 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "923-4" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0920-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 S.E. 2d 440", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595510 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0130-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 241, "char_count": 4045, "ocr_confidence": 0.531, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.551787216188241e-07, "percentile": 0.814412539109423 }, "sha256": "8fa3e7fbef12818555814867a72d851037541770efccd50a4abb477515302c76", "simhash": "1:9a1a7d00558c2cb8", "word_count": 683 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:38.064481+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. EMANUEL \u201cSHUG\u201d BROWN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pee C\u00fcRiam.\nThe principles of law applied by this Court in State v. Wilson, 216 N.C. 130, 4 S.E. 2d 440, are controlling on this appeal. Payment of fine as a condition of suspension of sentence does not render void the subsequent activation of the prison term for breach of other conditions. Defendant is not twice punished for the same offense. Conspiracy to violate the liquor law is a misdemeanor and punishable as at common law, that is, by fine or imprisonment, or'both. G.S. 14-3. State v. Powell, 94 N.C. 920, 923-4.\nThe conditions imposed in the judgment of June 1956 are not unreasonable. The period of suspension is within legal limits. G.S. 15-200. The breach of condition that defendant be law abiding and of good behavior has been held a sufficient predicate for putting prison sentence into effect. State v. Wilson, supra. \u25a0\nThe judgment of July 1960 recites that the court heard evidence \u201cof the State and the defendant.\u201d The only evidence brought forward in the record is the minutes of the Recorder\u2019s Court of Meck-lenburg County showing that in May 1960 defendant pleaded guilty to receiving stolen goods. Defendant objected to this evidence. The ground of obj ection does not appear in the record and does not clearly appear in the brief. The guilty plea is sufficient basis for a finding that the failure to be of good behavior was wilful. Rules of evidence are not so strictly enforced in a hearing by the judge as in a trial by jury.\nThe judgment below is\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pee C\u00fcRiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.", "Amon M. Butler and Elbert E. Foster for the defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. EMANUEL \u201cSHUG\u201d BROWN.\n(Filed 12 October, 1960.)\n1. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 17\u2014\nConspiracy to violate the liquor law is a misdemeanor punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both. G.S. 14-3.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 186\u2014\nWhere the court suspends execution of sentence on condition that defendant pay a fine and be of good behavior during the ensuing five years, the payment of the fine does not preclude the court from thereafter ordering the sentence put into effect upon the court\u2019s finding that defendant had breached the terms of suspension by violating the criminal law. G.S. 15-200.\n8. Same\u2014\nIn a hearing to determine whether defendant had violated the terms of a suspended sentence, the introduction in evidence of the minutes of a Recorder\u2019s Court to show that defendant had pleaded guilty to a criminal charge in that court, will not be held prejudicial, since rules of evidence are not so strictly enforced in a hearing by the judge as in a trial by jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Hooks, J., July 1960 Criminal Term, of MECKLENBURG.\nAt the June 1956 Criminal Term of Superior Court of Mecklen-burg County defendant, through counsel, pleaded guilty to a charge of \"conspiracy to violate North Carolina liquor laws.\" The court imposed a prison sentence of two years and suspended execution of the sentence on conditions, among others, that defendant pay a fine of $1,000.00 and costs, \u201cbe of good behavior\u201d and \"violate none of the laws of the State\u201d during the ensuing five years.\nAt the July 1960 term the State charged that defendant had violated the conditions and prayed that the prison sentence be put into effect.\n\". . . (A)fter hearing the evidence of the State and the defendant,\u201d the court found as a fact:\n\u201c2. That on May 19, 1960, the defendant was convicted in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Mecklenburg County upon a charge of receiving stolen goods or property well knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen, such offense having been committed on May 12, 1960, which said date was within five years from July 18, 1956 .' . .\n\u201c3. . . . (T)hat the defendant has not been of good behavior and has violated the law . . .\n\u201cTherefore, the court finds that the terms and conditions of the sentence imposed . . . have been wilfully violated, and it is ordered and adjudged that the suspended sentence ... be activated and placed into immediate effect ...\u201d\nDefendant appealed and assigned errors.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State.\nAmon M. Butler and Elbert E. Foster for the defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0195-01", "first_page_order": 235, "last_page_order": 237 }