{ "id": 8627317, "name": "STATE v. ROBERT WILLIAMS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams", "decision_date": "1961-01-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "804", "last_page": "807", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "253 N.C. 804" } ], "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": "175 U.S. 172", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1239474 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/175/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "306 U.S. 1", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6136154 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "14" }, { "page": "450" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/306/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E. 2d 47", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 389, "char_count": 6215, "ocr_confidence": 0.562, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.973126083369309e-08, "percentile": 0.37175159632858906 }, "sha256": "0c47a2a943d912823026048315ce120a32b2ba7e75c7b88432a79afedcbfd003", "simhash": "1:24518478604d875b", "word_count": 1088 }, "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. ROBERT WILLIAMS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PaekeR, J.\nDefendant testified in his own behalf. He has in substance two assignments of error. One, the denial by the court of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence. He contends the motion should have been granted for two reasons: First, the insufficiency of the evidence, and second, on constitutional grounds. Two, this part of the charge: \u201cNow, the court instructs you that the right of an operator of a private business, such as a drugstore and operating a lunch counter, to select the people it will serve or not serve is a right that our law recognizes.\u201d\nThe evidence for the State tends to show the following facts: On 11 March 1960, Jones Drug Company, Inc., was a privately owned retail drugstore situate in the town of Monroe. In it is a soda fountain with eleven stools, where sandwiches, coffee and soft drinks are sold. On the afternoon of 11 March 1960 defendant, a Negro, came into this store with ten or eleven teen-age Negro boys, and they sat down on the stools at the counter at the soda fountain. Whereupon, W. R. May, secretary, treasurer, part owner of the drugstore, and one of its managers, went to defendant, and asked him to leave, telling him they would not serve him at the fountain. He told him to leave several times. Defendant refused to leave. May told defendant he was going to get a trespass warrant, if he did not leave. Defendant said he couldn\u2019t get one. Then May went to the police station to get a warrant leaving defendant sitting on a stool at the soda fountain. The warrant in the case was sworn out by May.\nAfter May left to procure a warrant, Dolan Jones, president of the drug company and co-manager, went over and told defendant, \u201cthat the store belonged to us, and it wasn\u2019t our custom of serving colored people at the fountain sitting at the stools and that we had the privilege of serving who we wanted to or who we didn\u2019t want to, and to save trouble it would be good for him to get up and get on out.\u201d Defendant continued to sit there. About ten or fifteen minutes after Jones told defendant to get out, defendant got up and went out, then he came back in and sat down again. After a while he went out again.\nDefendant presents for decision in his written motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit on constitutional grounds the same constitutional questions that were presented and decided in the cases of S. v. Avent et al., decided this day, ante 253, 118 S.E. 2d 47, with the addition that he contends that his rights guaranteed by the equal protection and due process classes of the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution were violated, as well as by the similar provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.\nIn his brief he states these questions are presented for decision: One. Did the court err in refusing to grant his motion for judgment of involuntary nonsuit when defendant, a Negro, went into the store of Jones Drug Company, Inc., and took a seat at an eating counter which was customarily open to members of the White race? Two. Did the judicial process here constitute State action as prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution? Three. Did \u25a0the court err in its charge as set forth in his sole assignment of error thereto?\nDefendant in his brief has not favored us with any mention or discussion as to the alleged violation of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The Fifth Amendment, \u201cunlike the Fourteenth, has no equal protection clause.\u201d Currin v. Wallace, 306 U.S. 1, 14, 83 L. Ed. 441, 450. \u201cThe first ten amendments to the Federal Constitution contain no restrictions on the powers of the State, but were intended to operate solely on the Federal Government. . . . Due process and equal protection of the laws are guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this amendment operates to restrict the powers of the State, . . . .\u201d Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U.S. 172, 44 L. Ed. 119. Defendant has not shown that any of his rights were violated as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and we so hold.\nThe evidence was amply sufficient to carry the case to the jury. The constitutional questions presented for decision in this case, and the question presented by the assignment of error to the charge were decided in the cases of S. v. Avent et al., supra.\nUpon the authority of those cases we find no error in the trial of the instant case. All defendant\u2019s assignments of error are overruled.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "PaekeR, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "T. H. Wyche and W. B. Nivens for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. ROBERT WILLIAMS.\n(Filed 20 January, 1961.)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 30\u2014\nThe Fifth Amendment to the Federal Constitution contains no restrictions on the powers of the State but operates solely on the Federal Government, and 'therefore a State prosecution of a Negro for trespass in refusing to leave a drug store lunch counter after being requested to do so cannot violate any rights guaranteed by this section of the Federal Constitution.\n2. Same: Trespass \u00a7 9\u2014\nThe operator of a private drug store on private property has the right to discriminate on the basis of race as to persons whom he will serve at the soda fountain of the store, and evidence that a Negro sat at the counter and demanded service and refused to leave after request is sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for trespass.\nAn appeal by defendant from Armstrong, J., 10 May 1960 Regular Criminal Term, of Union.\nCriminal action tried de novo on appeal from the Recorder\u2019s Court of Union County on a warrant charging that defendant on 11 March 1960 in Union County \u201cunlawfully and willfully, did enter and trespass upon the land and premises of Jones Drug Company, Inc., after having been forbidden to enter said premises and not having a license to enter said premises and did unlawfully refuse to leave upon request contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nPlea: Not Guilty. Verdict: Guilty of trespass as charged in the warrant.\nFrom judgment imposed in accord with the verdict, defendant appeals.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nT. H. Wyche and W. B. Nivens for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0804-01", "first_page_order": 844, "last_page_order": 847 }