{
  "id": 8575645,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHNNIE WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1965-10-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "446",
  "last_page": "448",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "265 N.C. 446"
    }
  ],
  "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": "143 S.E. 2d 69",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 216",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574920
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0216-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "68 S.E. 2d 792",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 121",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621556
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0121-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 S.E. 2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631230
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165305
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0229-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 S.E. 2d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "246 N.C. 611",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627676
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/246/0611-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 S.E. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "113 N.C. 645",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653762
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/113/0645-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 S.E. 2d 764",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610332
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.C. 83",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8685329
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/73/0083-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 834",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627999
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "122 S.E. 2d 355",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571320
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0571-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 383,
    "char_count": 5802,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5411759465425647e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6729133629026248
    },
    "sha256": "91b4f9e56d883fc942055ecdd5ea23a13130676994d597c28374e30fccf03cad",
    "simhash": "1:9b23d17a322b3d5b",
    "word_count": 1041
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:16.118019+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHNNIE WILLIAMS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee CuRiAM.\nThe appellant does not contend the State\u2019s evidence was insufficient to carry the case to the jury and to support the verdict.\nThe appellant assigns as error, however, the failure of the court below to arrest judgment for that the bill of indictment was fatally defective in that it failed to allege one of the requisite elements of the crime of robbery, to wit, the taking with felonious intent to convert the personal property allegedly stolen to defendant\u2019s own use.\nRobbery at common law is defined as the felonious taking of money or goods of any value from the person of another in his presence, against his will, by violence or putting him in fear. S. v. Stewart, 255 N.C. 571, 122 S.E. 2d 355; S. v. Bell, 228 N.C. 659, 46 S.E. 2d 834; S. v. Burke, 73 N.C. 83. The gist of the offense of robbery with firearms is the accomplishment of the robbery by the use of or threatened use of firearms or other dangerous weapon. S. v. Mull, 224 N.C. 574, 31 S.E. 2d 764.\nThe indictment in the instant case is sufficient to meet the requirements of G.S. 14-87, and the allegation that the intent to convert the personal property stolen to the defendant\u2019s own use is not required to be alleged in the bill of indictment. S. v. Brown, 113 N.C. 645, 18 S.E. 51; S. v. Stewart, supra; S. v. Rogers, 246 N.C. 611, 99 S.E. 2d 803.\nIn the case of S. v. Lunsford, 229 N.C. 229, 49 S.E. 2d 410, relied on by the appellant, a new trial was granted because the court in its charge to the jury inadvertently failed to explain to the jury what constitutes felonious intent in the law of robbery. In the instant case, the court fully instructed the jury as to what is meant by a felonious taking. Cf. S. v. Chase, 231 N.C. 589, 58 S.E. 2d 364. This assignment of error is overruled.\nAppellant\u2019s assignment of error challenging the correctness of the judgment entered on the verdict returned by the jury is well taken and must be sustained.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of robbery and the court below imposed a sentence of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years in the State\u2019s prison. When, on a charge of robbery with firearms or other dangerous weapon, the jury returns a verdict of guilty of robbery, the maximum sentence that may be imposed is ten years. In re Ferguson, 235 N.C. 121, 68 S.E. 2d 792. Cf. S. v. Seymour, 265 N.C. 216, 143 S.E. 2d 69.\nThis case is remanded to the Superior Court of Sampson County with directions to vacate the sentence imposed by Judge Morris and to enter in lieu thereof a sentence which in no event may exceed the statutory limit of ten years. The prisoner is entitled to credit thereon for the time served.\nThe remaining assignments of error present no sufficient prejudicial error to warrant a new trial and they are overruled.\nRemanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee CuRiAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harrison Lewis, Trial Attorney Eugene A.. Smith for the State.",
      "John R. Parker for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHNNIE WILLIAMS.\n(Filed 13 October, 1965.)\n1. Robbery \u00a7 2\u2014\nIt is not required that an indictment charging the felonious taking of goods from the person of another by the use of force or a deadly weapon aver that the taking was with the intent to convert the personal property to defendant\u2019s own use, the question of specific intent being properly submitted to the jury under the charge. G.S. 14-87.\n2. Robbery \u00a7 6\u2014\nWhere, in a prosecution for armed robbery, the jury returns a verdict of robbery, the court may not impose a sentence in excess of 10 years.\nAppeal by defendant from Moms, J., January-February 1965 Session of Sampson.\nThis is a criminal action tried upon a bill of indictment charging that the defendant, on 7 January 1965, with the use of a deadly weapon, to wit, a bottle, did threaten and endanger the life of Perry Peterson, the prosecuting witness, and did unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously and violently take from Perry Peterson, and carry away, the goods, chattels and money of the said Perry Peterson, to wit, $35.00 in United States currency, against the form of the statute, et cetera.\nThe defendant and the prosecuting witness had known each other for seven or eight years. The State\u2019s evidence tends to show that on 7 January 1965 the prosecuting witness was at his home about 6:00 p.m. when defendant drove his car into the driveway. Defendant was invited inside. The defendant told the prosecuting witness that his car had just run out of gas and requested him to let him have some gas. The prosecuting witness declined to do so and stated that he had only sufficient gas to take him to work the next morning. The defendant then hit the prosecuting witness on the head with an oil bottle, after which the prosecuting witness bent down and picked up some of the broken glass at which time the defendant broke a soft drink bottle over the head of the prosecuting witness. The defendant then picked up a chair and demanded money. The prosecuting witness handed him his billfold and the defendant took $35.00 from it. The defendant then ordered the prosecuting witness to drive him to town. In trying to force the prosecuting witness to get in his car and drive him to town, defendant knocked him down, tore his clothing and knocked all of his jaw teeth out.\nThe defendant\u2019s evidence tends to show that he went to the home of the prosecuting witness to get a jar of liquor and that his car ran out of gas in the driveway; that the prosecuting witness told him to get his car away from there or he would call the police; that when he started to leave, the prosecuting witness attacked him with a knife.\nThe jury returned a verdict of \u201cGuilty of Robbery,\u201d and the defendant was sentenced to a term of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty years in the State\u2019s prison, from which judgment the defendant appeals, assigning error.\nAttorney General Bruton, Deputy Attorney General Harrison Lewis, Trial Attorney Eugene A.. Smith for the State.\nJohn R. Parker for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0446-01",
  "first_page_order": 486,
  "last_page_order": 488
}