{
  "id": 8565656,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BEAUFORD MERRILL HIGGS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Higgs",
  "decision_date": "1967-04-12",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "111",
  "last_page": "113",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "270 N.C. 111"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S.E. 2d 447",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561524
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 S.E. 2d 832",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631294
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0543-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4469,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.33772724692517e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9431607788716639
    },
    "sha256": "785ff057f8d7b1b56580917020d25958d7839f941da869d1c70dd9d141900465",
    "simhash": "1:d9cfa8017cfd4599",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:56.885447+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BEAUFORD MERRILL HIGGS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe case on appeal contains no assignment of error, and the transcript reveals that not a single objection was made or exception entered during the trial. Notwithstanding, after being informed by the court that he was entitled to appeal as a matter of right at the expense of the State, defendant gave notice of appeal, and counsel was appointed to bring up the case.\nIn preparing the case on appeal, counsel included a birth certificate which had not been introduced in evidence at the trial. It shows, inter alia, that a white male named Burford Murril Higgs was born in Person County on June 22, 1950. In this court, counsel moves .m arrest of judgment for that defendant had been charged and tried under the wrong name. The motion is overruled. Even if we assume that the inserted birth certificate is defendant\u2019s, it can avail him nothing. He was tried under the name of Beauford Merrill Higgs without objection or challenge, and he was sentenced under the same name. On the trial, no point was made of the slight variance between the given names of Beauford and Burford and of the slight variance in the spelling of the middle name, and defendant will not now be heard to say that he is not the man named in the bill of indictment. \u201cWhere defendant is tried without objection under one name, and there is no question of identity, he will not be allowed on appeal to contend that his real name was different.\u201d 2 Strong, N. C. Index, Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 10 (1959). Furthermore, the names Beauford and Burford sound enough alike to come within the rule of idem sonans, as do the names Merrill and Murril. State v. Vincent, 222 N.C. 543, 23 S.E. 2d 832.\nWhen the case on appeal contains no assignments of error, the judgment must be sustained, unless error appears on the face of the record. State v. Williams, 268 N.C. 295, 150 S.E. 2d 447. An examination of the record proper reveals\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Millard R. Rich, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "S. B. Davis, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BEAUFORD MERRILL HIGGS.\n(Filed 12 April, 1967.)\n1. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 10\u2014\nA difference between the spelling of defendant\u2019s given names in the indictment and in defendant\u2019s birth certificate is not fatal, the names coming within the doctrine of idem sonans and there being no question of identity, and defendant having made no objection or challenge during the trial.\n2. Criminal Jjaw \u00a7 154\u2014\nIn the absence of any assignment of error in the record, the judgment must be sustained when no error appears on the face of the record.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnson, J., September 12, 1966 Mixed Session of PERSON.\nIn each of two bills of indictment, defendant \u2014 under the name of Beauford Merrill Higgs \u2014, Glen Carl Sheets, and David Arthur Sheets were jointly charged with the felonies of breaking and entering and larceny. One bill charged that, on July 2, 1966, these three men feloniously broke into and entered a building occupied by Turner Harris, and known as Turner\u2019s Steak House, with the intent to steal personal property located therein and did steal therefrom personal property of the value of $30.00. The other bill charged that, on July 5, 1966, the three feloniously broke into and entered a building occupied by Paul Edward Chambers with the intent to steal his personal property and did steal therefrom goods and money belonging to Paul Edward Chambers of the value of $75.00.\nDefendant, through his counsel, pled not guilty to both indictments. Without objection, all charges were consolidated for trial. Glen Carl Sheets and David Arthur Sheets both pled guilty to the indictments and, as witnesses for the State, testified that they and defendant Higgs had committed the crimes charged in the bills of indictment. Defendant, offering no other witnesses in his behalf, testified that he had been with the Sheets boys in the early part of the nights of July 2nd and July 5th but that he was not with them at the time they entered Turner\u2019s Steak House and Chambers\u2019 place. On cross-examination, defendant admitted that he had previously served a prison term for breaking and entering and larceny and, in addition, had been committed to training schools four or five times. On three occasions he has escaped.\nThe jury\u2019s verdict was guilty as charged in both bills of indictment. Concurrent sentences of five to seven years were imposed on each count, and defendant appealed.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and Millard R. Rich, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nS. B. Davis, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0111-01",
  "first_page_order": 151,
  "last_page_order": 153
}