{ "id": 8575187, "name": "STATE v. BENNIE B. DAVIS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Davis", "decision_date": "1964-04-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "655", "last_page": "657", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "261 N.C. 655" } ], "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": "98 S.E. 2d 329", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625774 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "246" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0237-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 189", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595119 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "111" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S.E. 2d 355", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "247 N.C. 185", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625986 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "188" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/247/0185-01" ] }, { "cite": "98 S.E. 2d 885", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627207 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "521" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0518-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 215, "char_count": 3191, "ocr_confidence": 0.558, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.6115555665600208e-07, "percentile": 0.6856783928329412 }, "sha256": "676cdea3f37e37d9779ec040281be0b12833be0679312d3e7c866051b74ca0e7", "simhash": "1:5301cf7f84a103a8", "word_count": 531 }, "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. BENNIE B. DAVIS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe original warrant charges a violation of G.S. 20-138. The warrant as amended charges a violation of G.S. 20-139. Each of these statutes creates and defines a separate criminal offense. Hence, the court had no power to permit the original warrant \u201cto be amended so as to charge an entirely different crime from the one on which defendant was convicted in the lower court.\u201d S. v. Cooke, 246 N.C. 518, 521, 98 S.E. 2d 885, and cases cited; S. v. Cofield, 247 N.C. 185, 188, 100 S.E. 2d 355. Defendant\u2019s exception to the amendment to the original warrant is well taken.\nAbsent a bill of indictment (see G.S. 7-64), the only jurisdiction of the superior court on appeal was to try defendant for the specific misdemeanor for which he had been tried and convicted in the City Court of Raleigh, to wit, a violation of G.S. 20-138 as charged in the original warrant. S. v. Hall, 240 N.C. 109, 111, 81 S.E. 2d 189; S. v. Mills, 246 N.C. 237, 246, 98 S.E. 2d 329. Hence, defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment should have been and is now allowed.\nJudgment arrested.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.", "Earle B. Purser for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. BENNIE B. DAVIS.\n(Filed 15 April, 1964.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 70; Indictment and. Warrant \u00a7 12\u2014\nA warrant charging that defendant, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, operated a motor vehicle on a public highway or street cannot be amended so as to charge that defendant so operated the vehicle while on the (premises of a business in the parking space provided for customers thereof, since the two offenses are separate and distinct. G.S. 20-138, G.S. 20-139.\n2. Criminal Daw \u00a7 121\u2014\nOn appeal from an inferior court the Superior Court must try defendant upon the original warrant in the absence of an indictment, and when defendant is tried under an unauthorized amendment to the original warrant motion in arrest of judgment must be allowed.\nAppeal by defendant from Hobgood, J., February 1964 Criminal Session of Ware.\nDefendant was tried in the City Court of Raleigh on a warrant charging that defendant on September 7, 1963, \u201cdid willfully, maliciously and unlawfully drive an automobile on the public highways of Raleigh Township and on the public streets of the City while under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the Windmill Drive-In parking lot . . .\u201d (Our italics). From conviction and judgment, defendant appealed to the Superior Court of Wake County.\nWhen the case was called for trial in the superior court, the court allowed the solicitor\u2019s motion for leave to amend the original warrant so as to charge that defendant on September 7, 1963, \u201cdid unlawfully, willfully and maliciously drive an automobile upon the grounds and premises of a store, restaurant, and other business providing parking space for customers, patrons and the public while under the influence of intoxicating liquor . . .\u201d (Our italics). Defendant excepted.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged in the warrant as amended. Thereupon, defendant moved in arrest of judgment and excepted to the denial of his motion. The court pronounced judgment. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Deputy Attorney General McGalliard for the State.\nEarle B. Purser for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0655-01", "first_page_order": 695, "last_page_order": 697 }