{
  "id": 8567975,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM LEWIS ANDERSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Anderson",
  "decision_date": "1964-12-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "124",
  "last_page": "125",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 N.C. 124"
    }
  ],
  "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": "183 S.E. 388",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N.C. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221554
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0150-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S.E. 2d 617",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625316
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0745-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 783",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "810"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 237,
    "char_count": 3365,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.576,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3153172250582949
    },
    "sha256": "d6fa53d79e619709a8c7662a9f0bc5b8fcc7321524cd2c5839061eb36c6c9f93",
    "simhash": "1:4523b3f32e4c1dfd",
    "word_count": 577
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM LEWIS ANDERSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PeR Curiam.\nThe State\u2019s evidence was amply sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error to the denial of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence has not been brought forward and discussed in his brief. It is therefore deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court. 254 N.C. 783, 810.\nDefendant assigns as error this part of the charge:\n\u201cThey [the State] say and contend that the statute under which the defendant in this case is charged is a good law; that its primary purpose is to protect life and property on the highways; that the primary purpose of this statute, and other criminal statutes, is not to punish anybody, but is to protect your rights, and that you have a right to operate a motor vehicle on the highways of the State without being run into by some drunk, or by some person drinking or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence, and that you should convict in this case, and that if you cannot, if you don't convict on this evidence, then the law or statute commonly referred to as the \u2018drunken driving\u2019 statute, would have no purpose and no effect.\u201d\nThis assignment of error is well taken. We think the manner of stating the contentions of the State as set forth above, and particularly the peculiar emphasis of the words \u201cthat if you cannot, if you don\u2019t convict on this evidence, then the law or statute commonly referred to as the \u2018drunken driving\u2019 statute, would have no purpose and no effect\u201d was improper, gave the State an undue advantage over defendant, and was indicative of an opinion to the jury that the evidence had impressed on the judge\u2019s mind that defendant was guilty and should be convicted, and comes within the prohibition of G.S. 1-180. S. v. Benton, 226 N.C. 745, 40 S.E. 2d 617; S. v. Rhinehart, 209 N.C. 150, 183 S.E. 388. For error in the charge defendant is entitled to a New trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PeR Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard, and Assistant Attorney General Richard T. Sanders for the State..",
      "Boyan & Wilson by Clarence C. Boyan for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM LEWIS ANDERSON.\n(Filed 2 December, 1964.)\n1. Appeal and Error \u00a7 38\u2014\nAn exception not brought forward and discussed in the brief is deemed abandoned. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 28.\n2. Trial \u00a7 35\u2014\nIn a prosecution for driving a vehicle on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, an instruction to the effect that the State contended the statute was enacted to protect life and property and if the jury should fail to \u201cconvict on this evidence, then the law or statute commonly referred to as \u2018the drunken driving\u2019 statute, would have no purpose and no effect\u201d held prejudicial as an expression of opinion by the court on the evidence. G.S. 1-180.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, S.J., 10 February 1964, Criminal Session, Guilford\u2014 High Point Division.\nCriminal prosecution on a warrant charging defendant with unlawfully and wilfully operating an automobile upon the public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, tried de novo in the superior court after an appeal by defendant from a conviction and judgment in the High Point municipal court, criminal division.\nPlea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty as charged.\nFrom the judgment imposed, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard, and Assistant Attorney General Richard T. Sanders for the State..\nBoyan & Wilson by Clarence C. Boyan for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0124-01",
  "first_page_order": 162,
  "last_page_order": 163
}