{
  "id": 8560574,
  "name": "STATE v. ARLENE JORDAN STROUTH (APPLE)",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Strouth",
  "decision_date": "1966-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "340",
  "last_page": "342",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 N.C. 340"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0687-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575744
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0452-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4314,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.569,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.0924663440341376e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3204117305680756
    },
    "sha256": "62c782d8cbe104548455f9106004816110945974fa9f92b539451137c25bbbbe",
    "simhash": "1:1224e577a8dfa3bb",
    "word_count": 724
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:51.556627+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ARLENE JORDAN STROUTH (APPLE)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HiggiNS, J.\nThe defendant went to trial in the Municipal Court upon the charge of operating a motor vehicle upon the public highway while she was \u201cunder the influence of intoxicating liquor\u2014 narcotic drugs.\u201d She was convicted and appealed to the Superior Court. In the Superior Court she was tried de novo on the warrant. The jury returned a verdict: \u201cGuilty as charged.\u201d In neither court did the defendant challenge or object to the warrant.\nIn her appeal to this Court, for the first time, she takes the position that the warrant charges operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or, in the alternative, under the influence of narcotic drugs. Possibly the better view of the language used is that the warrant charges both. A driver may be under the influence of both liquor and drugs. If it be conceded, however, that the warrant charges in the disjunctive, the objection should have been raised by motion to quash the warrant made before trial. \u201cAs to the duplicity of charging two of the criminal offenses created and defined in G.S. 20-138, see State v. Thompson, 257 N.C. 452, 126 S.E. 2d 58. However, by going to trial without making a motion to quash, defendant waived any duplicity in the warrant.\u201d State v. Best, 265 N.C. 477, 144 S.E. 2d 416. \u201cBy going to trial without making a motion to quash, he waived any duplicity which might exist in the bill.\u201d State v. Merritt, 244 N.C. 687, 94 S.E. 2d 825.\nThe record does not contain the judge\u2019s charge. We may assume, therefore, that he properly instructed the jury as to permissible verdicts under the evidence.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HiggiNS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, James F. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General for the State.",
      "E. L. Alston, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ARLENE JORDAN STROUTH (APPLE).\n(Filed 14 January, 1966.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 70; Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14\u2014\nA defendant who goes to trial on a warrant charging him with operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway \u201cwhile under the influence of intoxicating liquor \u2014 narcotic drugs\u201d may not for the first time on appeal raise the question of duplicity, since he waives the defect by failing aptly to move to quash.\nAppeal by defendant Arlene Jordan Strouth (Apple) from Me-Loughlin, J., June 7, 1965 Regular Session, GuileoRd Superior Court, Greensboro Division.\nThis criminal prosecution originated by affidavit and warrant issued by the Criminal Division, Municipal County Court of Guil-ford. The affidavit was made by Frank Miller, member of the State Highway Patrol, charging that the \u201cDefendant on or about the third day of March, 1965, ... did unlawfully and wilfully drive a motor vehicle upon the highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor \u2014 narcotic drugs at Raleigh Street and Sullivan Street, Greensboro.\u201d\nThe order of arrest contained the following: \u201cFor the reasons stated in the foregoing affidavit which is hereby made a part of the warrant, you are hereby commanded to arrest the above named\nThe records of the Municipal County Court show the following: \u201cPlea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty. Prayer for judgment continued for 12 months on condition the defendant pay a fine of $100.00 and costs and not operate a motor vehicle in the State of North Carolina for a period of 12 months. . . . The defendant . . . gives notice of appeal in open court.\u201d\nIn the Superior Court before the jury, Patrolman Miller testified that on March 3, 1965, at 11:40 p.m., he observed a slowly moving motor vehicle on Raleigh and Sullivan Streets in Greensboro, being driven by the defendant. When the vehicle stopped several feet from the curb, the officer found the defendant slumped over on the steering wheel and, in his opinion, she was under the influence of intoxicating liquor. She admitted to the officer that some time before she had had a beer. She stated she had been taking different medicines which had been prescribed by her physician.\nThe defendant testified in her own defense. She denied she was under the influence of alcoholic beverages. She admitted, \u201cThat day I had drank the beer that I told him about, a part of one, and a cocktail between 1:00 and 1:30 in the afternoon. ... I have taken narcotics, but not that day.\u201d\nThe jury returned this verdict: \u201cGuilty as charged.\u201d From the judgment imposed, the defendant appealed.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General, James F. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nE. L. Alston, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0340-01",
  "first_page_order": 376,
  "last_page_order": 378
}