{
  "id": 8571033,
  "name": "STATE v. CLEVELAND COLON OWENS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Owens",
  "decision_date": "1967-11-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "100",
  "last_page": "102",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "272 N.C. 100"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 341,
    "char_count": 5195,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.539,
    "sha256": "cd5ba15fcc2a9a2cb569cdbe049e5fafb12d61995837534295e631d7123f2172",
    "simhash": "1:c34661a547c536d3",
    "word_count": 880
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:35.058336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CLEVELAND COLON OWENS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cubiam.\nEvidence offered by the State includes, inter alia, evidence tending to show the following: Defendant was operating a Pontiac car in Randolph County on N. C. Highway #22 about 10:00 or 10:30 p.m. on November 28, 1966, \u201cwith no lights on,\u201d at a speed of \u201cabout 20 miles an hour,\u201d from one side of the road to the other and \u201crunning clean off on both shoulders of the road, both left and right.\u201d After the State Highway Patrolman \"turned on the blue light and siren,\u201d defendant \u201ckept slowing down . . . and finally the car just choked and came to a stop in the highway.\u201d Thereupon, the State Highway Patrolman pulled his car in back of defendant and a police officer of the town of Ramseur, who had been driving behind the patrolman, pulled in front of defendant and parked. Defendant explained \u201con' numerous occasions,\u201d in response to inquiry as to why his lights were off, \u201cthat he had seen babies going up in the air in front of him, and that he cut his lights off so that he couldn\u2019t see them.\u201d The patrolman and police officer had to help defendant get out of his own car and into the patrol car. Defendant was unable to walk unassisted. There was a strong odor of alcohol on his breath and person. There were twelve or more cans of beer in defendant\u2019s car and two empty containers. In the opinion of the officers, defendant was under the influence of some intoxicant.\nWhile there was other evidence tending to support the opinion of the officers, the foregoing is sufficient to show there was plenary evidence to support the verdict.\nDefendant testified he had driven a tractor-trailer from New York to High Point, arriving in High Point about 8:30 p.m.; that between New York and High Point, at each of three stops, he \u201ctook a few pills, . . . the kind of pills that keep you awake\u201d; that, after leaving the tractor-trailer at the terminal in High Point, he stopped at the VFW in Archdale for about thirty minutes and while there bought two cartons of beer; and that he did not know what he did after he left the YFW.\nAccording to the patrolman, defendant stated on the occasion of his arrest that the last time he had taken tranquilizers, pills or medications of any kind was \u201c(t)wo weeks ago.\u201d If pills were taken by defendant en route from New York to High Point, the evidence is silent as to the contents of such pills.\nDefendant assigns as error the court\u2019s failure to charge, in accordance with defendant\u2019s request, \u201cthat should (the) jury find that defendant was under the influence of anything other than intoxicating beverage he should be acquitted or that verdict of not guilty be returned.\u201d This assignment is without merit. The court instructed the jury that, as a prerequisite to conviction, the State was required to satisfy the jury from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant, while driving the car on a public highway, was under the influence of an intoxicant as correctly defined by the court. The court\u2019s charge, considered in its entirety, shows plainly that the word, intoxicant, as used in the phrase, \u201cunder the influence of an intoxicant,\u201d meant \u201cany sort of intoxicating beverage, whether it be beer, wine, liquor, or vodka, or any other sort of intoxicating beverage.\u201d\nEach of defendant\u2019s other assignments of error, which relate to rulings on evidence and excerpts from the charge, has been considered. None discloses prejudicial error or presents a question of sufficient substance to justify particular discussion thereof.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Melvin and Staff Attorney Costen for the State.",
      "Walker, Bell & Ogburn for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CLEVELAND COLON OWENS.\n(Filed 22 November, 1967.)\nAutomobiles \u00a7 129\u2014\nIn tbis prosecution for driving on a public highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, there was evidence that defendant, at the time of his arrest, had empty beer cans in his car, that his breath smelled of alcohol, and that the patrolman had to help defendant out of his car and into the patrol car. Held: Defendant may not complain of the failure of the court to instruct the jury that defendant should be acquitted if the jury should find that defendant was under the influence of anything other than an alcoholic beverage, notwithstanding defendant\u2019s testimony that on a trip terminating some two hours prior to the occasion in question he had taken a few pills to keep him awake.\nAppeal by defendant from Armstrong, J., September 1967 Criminal Session of RaNdolph.\nCriminal prosecution on a warrant charging that defendant, on November 28, 1966, operated an automobile on N. C. Highway #22 in Randolph County, North Carolina, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of G.S. 20-138. The case was tried de novo in the superior court after appeal by defendant from conviction and judgment in the Recorder\u2019s Court of Randolph County. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The court pronounced judgment imposing a sentence of \u201cnot less than twelve (12) months one day nor more than twenty-four (24) months\u201d and suspended this sentence for two years upon conditions set forth in said judgment. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton, Assistant Attorney General Melvin and Staff Attorney Costen for the State.\nWalker, Bell & Ogburn for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0100-01",
  "first_page_order": 136,
  "last_page_order": 138
}