{ "id": 8559661, "name": "STATE v. MARK EDWARD WELLS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wells", "decision_date": "1963-04-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "173", "last_page": "181", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "259 N.C. 173" } ], "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": "126 S.E. 2d 58", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 N.C. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568458 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "457" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/257/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 825", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 687", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219462 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "688" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0687-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 2d 654", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 769", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624806 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0769-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 S.E. 2d 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 711", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626910 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "717" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0711-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219595 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 149", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619529 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 793", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610323 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "242 N.C. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608795 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "62" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/242/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S.E. 2d 355", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625986 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "110 S.E. 93", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "182 N.C. 907", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659534 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0907-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 670", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624720 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599333 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 S.E. 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651482 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/101/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612738 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S.E. 309", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "181 N.C. 584", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657893 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0584-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 837, "char_count": 22015, "ocr_confidence": 0.519, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4771707699925968e-07, "percentile": 0.6604006642858329 }, "sha256": "b768c369fe688e0adc965a708c1e0d2a22761a4ad742afa676e179436fe80c7a", "simhash": "1:c7cfdb58f4ae2e32", "word_count": 3730 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Higgins and Rodman, JJ., join in this opinion." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. MARK EDWARD WELLS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Bobbitt, J.\nWith reference to Case No. 7141, based on warrant bearing Serial No. 149413, the verdict and judgment relate solely to the count in this warrant charging \u201cResist Arrest.\u201d This count, which presumably was intended to charge n violation of G.S. 14-223, is fatally defective; and, with reference thereto, defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment is allowed. S. v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 62, 86 S.E. 2d 774, and cases cited; S. v. Harvey, 242 N.C. 111, 112, 86 S.E. 2d 793. \u201c. . . while it is a general rule prevailing in this State that an indictment for a statutory offense is sufficient if the offense be charged in the words of the statute, S. v. Jackson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E. 2d 149, the rule is inapplicable where the words of the statute do not in themselves inform the accused of the specific offense of which he is accused so as to enable him to prepare his defense or plead his conviction or acquittal as a bar to further prosecution for the same offense, as where the statute characterizes the offense in mere general or generic terms, or does not sufficiently define the crime or set forth all its essential elements.\u201d S. v. Cox, 244 N.C. 57, 59, 92 S.E. 2d 413.\nWith reference to Case No. 7143, based on warrant bearing Serial No. 149411:\n1. The count in this warrant purporting to charge a violation of G.S. 20-140 describes the offense in these words: \u201cCareless and Reckless Driving (20-140).\u201d This count is fatally defective and, with reference thereto, defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment is allowed. As indicated above, the minimum requirement of >a warrant or indictment for a statutory offense is that such offense be charged substantially in the language of the statute. S. v. Barnes, 253 N.C. 711, 717, 117 S.E. 2d 849, and cases cited; S. v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769, 12 S.E. 2d 654, and cases cited. (Note: As to punishment for violation of G.S. 20-140(a) .and G.S. 20-140(b), see G.S. 20-140(c).)\n2. The count in this warrant charging \u201cFail to. Stop for Red Light and Siren,\u201d contains no reference to the statute(s) on which it is based. Without reference to whether this count sufficiently charges a violation of G.S. 20-158(c) or a violation of G.S. 20-157(a), the judgment imposing sentence thereon must be and is arrested. The court\u2019s instructions to the jury contain no reference to this count or to evidence or contentions pertinent thereto. Hence, it appears plainly the court did not submit this count for jury determination.\n3. The count in this warrant charging that defendant unlawfully and wilfully operated a motor vehicle upon the public highway at a speed of 80 miles per hour in a 55-mile per -hour speed zone sufficiently charges a violation of G.S. 20-141. However, the judgment imposing sentence on this count must be and is arrested. The court\u2019s instructions to the jury contain no reference to this count or to evidence or contentions pertinent thereto. Hence, it appears plainly that the court did not submit this count for jury determination.\nWith reference to Oase No-. 7142, 'based on warrant -bearing Serial No. 149412, the only count in this warrant charges that defendant \u201c(o)n Sat. the 24 day of Feb. 1962 at 12:10 A.M. in Wayne County in the vicinity of N.C. 581 . . . did unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets .or highways: . . . Transporting and -possession of a quantity of nontaxpaid whiskey for the purpose of sale, to wit, 30 gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey,\u201d etc.\nConceding the possession of nontaxpaid whiskey for the purpose of sale is a separate and distinct -criminal offense, the portion of this warrant written in ink must be considered in relation to the preceding portion, namely, the accusation that the defendant unlawfully and wilfully operated a motor vehicle upon the public -highway, etc. While inexpertly drawn, the warrant charges the unlawful transportation by defendant of 30 gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey, a violation of the Turlington Act, G.S. 18-2, and also a violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act of 1937, G.S. 18-49.1, G.S. 18-49.2 and G.S. 18-49.3. Whether the transportation of the nontaxpaid whiskey was unlawful did not depend upon whether it was being transported for the purpose of sale. Moreover, only a person in the actual or constructive possession of nontaxpaid whiskey, absent conspiracy or -aiding and abetting, could be guilty of the unlawful transportation thereof. Thus, in the circumstances here considered, we think the references to \u201cpossession\u201d and \u201cfor the purpose of sale\u201d were superfluous but did not mislead or prejudice defendant.\nDefendant made no motion to quash the warrant and thereby waived any duplicity therein. S. v. Merritt, 244 N.C. 687, 688, 94 S.E. 2d 825, and cases -cited. As to this warrant, defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment (first made in this Court) is without merit and is denied.\nWhen this warrant and the evidence and the charge relating thereto are considered, it appears clearly the court submitted for jury determination whether\u2019 defendant was guilty or not guilty of one criminal offense, namely, the unlawful transportation of nontaxpaid whiskey, a misdemeanor. See S. v. Thompson, 257 N.C. 452, 457, 126 S.E. 2d 58, and cases cited.\nReferring to this warrant, the court charged the jury in part as follows: \u201cIt is against the law ... for -any person in North Carolina to transport any amount of non-tax paid -whisky; it is against the law in North Carolina for -any person to transport more than one gallon of tax-paid whisky, at any time, unless he be a duly authorized person of the state to transport it for ABC purposes, from place to place; (and the possession of any person in such a quantity as thirty gallons would carry with it the implication that the person had it for unlawful disposition or for sale.)\u201d Defendant assigns as error the portion of the foregoing instruction enclosed by parentheses.\nThe 'Context shows the court, in the excerpt challenged by defendant, was referring to law applicable to the transportation of taxpaid whiskey. There is no evidence or suggestion that the whiskey transported by defendant was taxpaid whiskey. As indicated, the court had instructed the jury correctly (and did so in further instructions) that the transportation of any quantity of nontaxpaid whiskey was unlawful. The reference to the possession and transportation of tax-paid whiskey was unnecessary. Even so, we do not perceive the court\u2019s comments with reference thereto were prejudicial to defendant.\nThere was plenary evidence nontaxpaid whiskey (30 gallons) was being transported in the trunk of defendant\u2019s car and that defendant tried (but failed) to outrun the State highway patrolmen and thereby avoid search of the trunk and discovery of the whiskey.\nAs to the charge of unlawful transportation of nontaxpaid whiskey, defendant\u2019s testimony is interesting. Summarized, except when quoted, defendant\u2019s testimony was as follows:\nUntil approximately two years prior to February 24, 1962, defendant had \u201chauled liquor for about a couple of years\u201d for a man in Johnston County but \u201cstopped for a while.\u201d Prior to February 24, 1962, defendant \u201chad gotten behind on (his) bills\u201d and \u201chad to do something.\u201d A man \u201chad been calling (him), telling (him) to come back,\u201d and as a result defendant made the following agreement:\nDefendant was to go to Johnston County three times a week and on one of his trips back he \u201cwas supposed to have whiskey on the automobile.\u201d Defendant would drive his car to an agreed location in Johnston County and there be met by a man who would take his key and car and leave. Defendant would wait until the man brought his car back and returned his key. Defendant bad no key or other means of opening the trunk or boot of his own car. When defendant\u2019s car and key were delivered to him, \u201cthe man\u201d would drive off in his car after first telling defendant where he was to park his car on his next trip to Johnston County. Defendant would then drive to Goldsboro, \u201cgo down on Carolina Street, pass these buildings and pull in and park it (his car) on the lot.\u201d Defendant would leave his car on the lot and after about thirty minutes would come back and pick it up. Defendant was not present at any time \u201cwhen the liquor was loaded on (his) car\u201d or \u201cwhen the liquor was taken off (his) car.\u201d The trip he was making when stopped by a State highway patrolman was the third trip he had made that week. He \u201cdidn\u2019t think\u201d there was any liquor on the ear on this trip because \u201cit was not sitting down.\u201d \u201cUsually at the times it was ever on there, you oould almost tell because usually it would set heavy.\u201d Defendant did not know the man with whom he made the foregoing arrangement, had bad no contact with him, \u201cnot as far as personally meeting him.\u201d He did not know the name of the man in Johnston County to whom he delivered his car on February 23, 1962. This man \u201cwas a colored man who was driving a 1957 Ford . . .\u201d This man \u201cwas always clean shaven and \u2018just ordinary\u2019 every time that (defendant) saw him. He would call (defendant) and tell (defendant) when it was time to go.\u201d\nThe foregoing testimony is a notable commentary upon the devious and ingenious ways in which those engaged in the business of violating the criminal law with reference to the transportation of whiskey seek to avoid detection and successful prosecution.\nWhile there were errors in other respects, we find no prejudicial error with reference to defendant\u2019s conviction in Case No. 7142, based on warrant bearing Serial No. 149412, charging the unlawful transportation of nontaxpaid whiskey. It is noted that the sentence imposed by tire judgment pronounced in Case No. 7142 did not depend upon or follow any other sentence but was to go into effect immediately.\nIt is noted: The arrest of judgment on the ground a warrant is fatally defective does not bar further prosecution on a valid warrant. S. v. Barnes, supra, and cases cited.\nThe warrants involved on this appeal emphasize again the necessity and importance of drafting criminal pleadings in accordance with well established legal requirements.\nCase No. 7142, no error.\nCase No. 7141, judgment arrested.\nCase No. 7143, judgments arrested.", "type": "majority", "author": "Bobbitt, J." }, { "text": "Moore, J.\ndissenting in part and concurring in part:\nI agree with the majority opinion that judgment should be arrested in cases 7141 and 7143. But in my opinion there should be a new trial in 7142.\nIn addition to the fatal defects in the warrants in cases 7141 and 7143, discussed in the majority opinion, these warrants are bad for duplicity. In a warrant or indictment consisting of several counts, each count should be complete in itself and the defendant should be named in each count. State v. McCollum, 181 N.C. 584, 107 S.E. 309.\nIn case 7142 the warrant charges \u201ctransporting and possession of a quantity of non-tax paid whisky for the purpose of sale. . .\u201d Thus the warrant charges in one count two offenses, transporting (G.S. 18-2) and possession for the purpose of sale (G.S. 14-32). State v. Sigmon, 190 N.C. 684, 130 S.E. 854. An indictment or warrant which charges more than one offense in the same count is bad for duplicity. State v. Cooper, 101 N.C. 684, 8 S.E. 134.\nA motion to quash for duplicity should be made before pleading to the charge, and if made after plea it is addressed to the sound discretion of the court and is not allowable as a matter of right. State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604. If the motion is made after verdict it comes too late. State v. Avery, 236 N.C. 276, 72 S.E. 2d 670; State v. Mundy, 182 N.C. 907, 110 S.E. 93.\nThere was no motion to quash for duplicity in the instant case, and the point -is not raised on appeal. The matter of duplicity is discussed here because it emphasizes the error in the court\u2019s instructions to the jury.\nThe majority opinion points out that the warrant deals generally with the operation of a motor vehicle on a street or highway and concludes therefrom the reference to possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale is mere surplusage, that the warrant only charges unlawful transportation. But it should be borne in mind that it is unlawful to possess whiskey for sale, under the statutory prohibitions, at any place, even in 'a moving motor vehicle.\nThe trial judge instructed the jury:\n\u201cHe (defendant) is charged first of all with transportation of non-tax paid whisky and possession of non-tax paid whisky for the purpose of sale.\n\u201cIt is against the law . . . for any person in North Carolina to transport -any amount of non-tax paid whisky. . . .\n\u201c(and the possession of any person in such a quantity as thirty gallons would carry with it the implication that the person had it for unlawful disposition or for sale.) \u201d\nLater in the charge, the court stated to the jury:\n\u201c. . . (y)ou will proceed to consider whether or not you find him guilty of transportation of and possession of non-tax paid whisky.\u201d (Defendant was not charged with \u201cpossession,\u201d but was charged with \u201cpossession for the purpose of sale.\u201d State v. Cofield, 247 N.C. 185, 100 S.E. 2d 355.)\nThereafter, the instructions as to the warrant in case 7142 deal only with the contentions of the State and defendant with respect to transportation of intoxicating liquor.\nI agree that the court correctly charged the law respecting transportation of liquor. But the \u00abcharge was both erroneous and incomplete as to possession for the purpose of sale. As a literary matter, I agree that it is a possible, though not a necessary, construction of the court\u2019s charge on possession and possession for sale that it is merely explanatory of the instruction as -to transportation. But nowhere does the court expressly inform the. jury that it is to disregard \u201cpossession for the purpose of sale\u201d and consider only whether the defendant is guilty of transporting intoxicating liquor. Moreover, at no place in the charge is the jury informed what \u00abpossible verdicts it may render.\nIn case 7142 the jury returned a general verdict of guilty. We do not know whether it intended to return a verdict of guilty of, transporting intoxicating liquor, a verdict of guilty only of possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale, or a verdict of guilty of both. If it intended either of the -two latter verdicts, the verdict is based on an incomplete and incorrect charge. In my opinion the jury did not have proper legal direction and guidance in case 7142 and was left to its own devices in arriving at a verdict. I vote for a new trial in case 7142.\nHiggins and Rodman, JJ., join in this opinion.", "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part", "author": "Moore, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.", "Braswell & Strickland for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. MARK EDWARD WELLS.\n(Filed 10 April 1963.)\n1. Arrest and Bail \u00a7 6; Automobiles \u00a7 65\u2014\nA warrant form baying tbe name of defendant and averment of tbe time of tbe commission of tbe offense typewritten, followed by tbe printed words, \u201cdid unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle upon tbe public streets or highways,\u201d with tbe words \u201cResist Arrest\u201d written in ink in tbe space provided for written descriptions of charges not included in tbe printed list of offenses against tbe motor vehicle laws, held, fatally defective.\n2. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014\nA statutory offense may be charged substantially in tbe language of the statute if its language charges tbe offense with sufficient definiteness ito apprise tbe accused of tbe specific offense charged, enable him to prepare bis defense, and to appeal bis conviction or acquittal as a bar to a subsequent prosecution, otherwise tbe language of tbe statute must be implemented so as to supply the requisite definiteness.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 121\u2014\nJudgment on a count in a warrant must be arrested when the record discloses that tbe court in its instructions to tbe jury did not refer to tbe count or to the evidence or contentions pertinent thereto, and thus did not submit tbe count for the determination of the jury.\n4. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 9\u2014\nTbe printed form of the warrant for motor vehicle violations in this ease bad typewritten words naming defendant and specifying tbe date and place, followed by tbe printed words, \u201cdid unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle upon tbe public streets or highways,\u201d followed by words written in ink, \u201c(T)ransporting and possession of a quantity of nontaxpaid whiskey for the purpose of sale. . .\u201d Held; The warrant is sufficient to charge defendant with tbe unlawful transportation of non-taxpaid whiskey, and under tbe circumstances the reference to \u201cpossession\u201d and \u201cfor the purpose of sale\u201d were non-prejudicial surplusage, there being no motion to quash for duplicity.\n5. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14\u2014\nDuplicity in an indictment or warrant is waived by failure to move to quash.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 107\u2014\nWhere there is plenary evidence that defendant transported nontaxpaid whiskey in tbe trunk of bis car, and it is apparent from tbe warrant and evidence that tbe court submitted to the jury the sole question of defendant\u2019s guilt of tbe one offense of unlawful transportation of nontax-paid whiskey, with correct instructions thereon that the transportation of any quantity of nontaxpaid whiskey is unlawful, further reference in tbe charge to possession and transportation of taxpaid whiskey, held not prejudicial.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 121\u2014\nThe arrest of judgment for faital defects in the warrant does noit bar subsequent prosecution on a valid warrant.\nMooRE, J. dissenting in part and concurring in part.\nHiggins and Hodman, JJ., join in dissent.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Emergency Judge, September 1962 Special Criminal Term of WayNE.\nCriminal prosecution on three warrants each charging that defendant, on Saturday, February 24, 1962, at 12:10 a.m., \"did unlawfully and willfully operate a motor vehicle upon the public streets or highways,\u201d and thereafter indicating (in the manner and to the extent set forth below) the nature of the alleged criminal conduct of defendant.\nImmediately below the (printed) words quoted above, there appears on the form a list of printed statements describing briefly certain violations of the motor vehicle laws. Opposite each such statement is a box in which the affiant may indicate by a check mark the listed violation, if any, for which the warrant is issued. Immediately below these (printed) statements space is available in which the affiant may write a description of a violation not included in the printed list. Thereafter, these (printed) words appear: \u201cin violation of and contrary to the form of the statute (s) in such case(s) made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.\u201d\nEach warrant bears the captions \u201cUniform Traffic Violation Record,\u201d and \u201cAffidavit and Warrant,\u201d and each bears a \u201cSerial No.\u201d\nThe warrant bearing \u201cSerial No. 149412\u201d does not purport to charge any listed violation. In the space below said list, the violation it purports to charge is written in ink in these words: \u201cTransporting and possession of a quantity of nontaxpaid whiskey for the purpose of sale, to wit, 30 gallons of nontaxpaid whiskey.\u201d\nThe warrant bearing \u201cSerial No. 149413\u201d does not purport to charge any listed violation. In the space below said list, the violations it purports to 'charge are written in ink in these words: \u201cResist Arrest\u201d and \u201cAssault on officer J. F. Allsbrook in performance of his duty by striking him in the face with his fist, hand and elbow.\u201d\nThe warrant bearing \u201cSerial No. 149411\u201d purports to charge these violations: One (the first) listed violation is checked, to wit: \u201cBy speeding (over limit) 80 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone.\u201d (Note: The figures 80 and 55 are written in ink.) In the space below said list, the violations it purports to charge are written in ink in these words: \u201cCareless and Reckless Driving (20-140)\u201d and \u201cFail to Stop for Red Light and Siren.\u201d\nThe said warrants were issued February 28, 1962. Upon trial thereon in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Wayne County, defendant was adjudged guilty and judgments imposing prison sentences were pronounced. Defendant appealed. Upon trial de novo in the superior court, the cases (there designated Cases Nos. 7142, 7141, and 7143, respectively) were consolidated for trial. Consolidated for trial with them was a case designated in superior court as Case No. 7140 in which defendant was found not guilty of the charge of an assault with a deadly weapon, to wit, an automobile, with intent to kill.\nThe trial in superior court resulted in verdicts and judgments as follows:\nWith reference to the charge (s) in Case No. 7142, based on warrant bearing Serial No. 149412, the jury returned a verdict of guilty; and judgment imposing an active sentence of two years was pronounced.\nWith reference to the charge(s) in Case No. 7141, based on warrant bearing Serial No. 149413, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of \u201cresisting arrest.\u201d The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to the assault charge in said warrant and, as to this charge, the State took a nol. pros, with leave. Upon the verdict of guilty of \u201cresisting arrest,\u201d judgment imposing an active sentence of two years, to begin at the expiration of the sentence imposed in Case No. 7142, was pronounced.\nWith reference to the charge (s) in Case No. 7143, based on warrant bearing Serial No. 149411, the case on appeal states defendant was found guilty \u201cof all of these charges.\u201d For \u201cCareless and Reckless Driving,\u201d judgment imposing an active sentence of one year, to begin at the expiration of the sentence imposed in Case No. 7141, was pronounced. For \u201cFail to Stop for Red Light and Siren,\u201d judgment imposing an active sentence of one year was pronounced; but it was provided this sentence was to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for \u201cCareless and Reckless Driving.\u201d For \u201cspeeding (over limit) 80 miles per hour in a 55 miles per hour zone,\u201d the judgment pronounced was identical with that pronounced for \u201cFail to Stop for Red Light and Siren.\u201d\nDefendant excepted to said judgments and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.\nBraswell & Strickland for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0173-01", "first_page_order": 217, "last_page_order": 225 }