{
  "id": 8574926,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM PLEASANT ELLIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ellis",
  "decision_date": "1964-04-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "606",
  "last_page": "608",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "261 N.C. 606"
    }
  ],
  "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": "37 S.E. 2d 688",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 237",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616840
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0237-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 274,
    "char_count": 4501,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.531,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9718740660250665e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7394133789267251
    },
    "sha256": "df2f63fe61708bd989a996c92c0713dbe5033f6ddb6c5b9db05a725884c87aaa",
    "simhash": "1:9b52453bdffb9181",
    "word_count": 776
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:45.776989+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM PLEASANT ELLIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe defendant does not contend that the State\u2019s evidence was insufficient to carry the case to the jury. The only assignments of error are to certain portions of the charge.\nThe court charged the jury three times as to what constitutes being under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or beverage within the meaning of G.S. 20-138 in substantially the following language: \u201cThe court has heretofore instructed you and again instructs you that a person as under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or beverage when that person has drunk or consumed a sufficient quantity of some intoxicating liquor or beverage, be it beer, wine or whiskey, be it a spoonful or a quart, be it a bottle of beer or a quart of liquor, to cause him to lose the normal control of either his mental or bodily faculties or both of these faculties to such an extent that there is a noticeable and appreciable impairment of either one or both of these faculties.\u201d\nThe defendant assigns as error the inclusion of the words, \u201cbe it beer, wine or whiskey, be it a spoonful or a quart, be it a bottle of beer or a quart of liquor,\u201d in the charge which is in other respects substantially in accord with the rule laid down in the case of S. v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 37 S.E. 2d 688, where the defendant had been charged, tried and convicted of a violation of G.S. 20-138.\nThe correct test within the meaning of the statute is not whether the party charged with the violation thereof had drunk or consumed a spoonful or a quart of intoxicating beverage, but whether a person is under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug by reason of his having drunk a sufficient quantity of an intoxicating beverage or taken a sufficient amount of narcotic drugs, to cause him to lose normal control of his bodily or mental faculties, or both, to such an extent that there is an appreciable impairment of either or both of these faculties.\nIt is common knowledge that a very small amount of an intoxicating liquor might substantially affect the mental and physical faculties of one person, while such an amount might not appreciably affect some other person.\nThe gravamen of the offense charged here, as in the Carroll case, was driving a motor vehicle upon a public highway while under the influence of an intoxicant.\nThe rule laid down and approved in the Carroll case has been cited with approval by this Court some twenty or more times, and we think the instruction approved in that case is a clear, simple and adequate guide for a jury to determine whether or not a defendant was at the time involved under the influence of an intoxicating liquor or a narcotic drug within the meaning of the statute, and any substantial deviation therefrom is not approved.\nHowever, since in the trial below the court each time it gave the instruction complained of included the instruction approved in the Carroll case, we do not think the instruction with respect to the consumption \u201cof a spoonful or a quart\u201d of intoxicating liquor or beverage was sufficiently prejudicial to justify a new trial in light of the evidence in this case.\nIn the trial below, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, De-puty Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard for the State.",
      "Deal, Hutchins Ac, Minor for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM PLEASANT ELLIS.\n(Filed 8 April, 1964.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 74\u2014\nWhere, in a prosecution for operating an automobile upon a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, the court correctly defines \u201cunder the influence,\u201d the fact that the court also charges that it was immaterial whether the liquor or beverage consumed was beer, wine, whiskey, or whether it was a spoonful or a quart, etc., held, not prejudicial error. G.S. 20-188.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnston, J., 4 September 1963 Criminal Session of Forsyth.\nThis is a criminal action in which the defendant was tried in the Municipal Court of the City of Winston-Salem, North Carolina, upon a warrant charging that he did unlawfully and wilfully drive a motor vehicle upon the'public highways of North Carolina while \u201cunder the influence of intoxicating liquors.\u201d- From a verdict of guilty and the judgment imposed thereon, the defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Forsyth County where he was tried de novo upon the same warrant.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty. A prison term was imposed but suspended for a period of two years upon the conditions set out in the judgment.\nThe defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton, De-puty Attorney General Harry W. Mc-Galliard for the State.\nDeal, Hutchins Ac, Minor for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0606-01",
  "first_page_order": 646,
  "last_page_order": 648
}
