{
  "id": 8572711,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RIP ALSTON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Alston",
  "decision_date": "1967-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "278",
  "last_page": "279",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "272 N.C. 278"
    }
  ],
  "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": "138 S.E. 2d 797",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 48",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8566905
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0048-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569683
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 S.E. 2d 287",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622447
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 U.S. 335",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1765333
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/372/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 U.S. 45",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        369864
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/287/0045-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 U.S. 458",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        10805
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/304/0458-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 317,
    "char_count": 3619,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.57,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9620192065822412e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7381090557789276
    },
    "sha256": "e99c46567e1fdc7864dde6377e05f4c2005465dbd7b776fcdb8bcd4881ddfcad",
    "simhash": "1:c3a7d47a33a95838",
    "word_count": 607
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:35.058336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RIP ALSTON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cxjeiam.\nWhen the defendant came before the Bar, the presiding judge was most solicitous. He emphasized that the defendant was entitled to an attorney and did everything but force the defendant to accept the services of court-appointed and expense-free counsel. The defendant was emphatic in his refusal. He told the Court that \u201c[he] could do it [defend himself] as well as any lawyer.\u201d The Court then apparently reluctantly permitted the defendant to go to trial after having made findings in full compliance with Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. ed. 1461, and Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. ed. 158. The gist of all these rulings is concisely stated in Gideon v. Wain-wHght, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. ed. 2d 799:\n\u201cCounsel must be provided for defendants unable to employ counsel unless the right is competently and intelligently waived.\u201d\nIn State v. Pritchard, 227 N.C. 168, 41 S.E. 2d 287, Chief Justice Stacy said:\n\u201cThe defendant insisted on trying his own case, which he had every right to do under the statute. G.S. 1-11. He proved to be a poor lawyer and an unwise client.\u201d\nIn State v. McNeil, 263 N.C. 260, 139 S.E. 2d 667 and State v. Bines, 263 N.C. 48, 138 S.E. 2d 797, we held that the constitutional right to counsel does not justify forcing counsel upon an accused who wants none.\nTo represent him in this appeal, the defendant has accepted the services of court-appointed counsel who urges that the defendant did not have sufficient intelligence to knowingly and understandingly waive the right to counsel. The defendant is a high school graduate, worked at a radio station, booked bands for dances, operated a business in Durham (Speedie Products), and is writing a religious book. His activities refute his lawyer\u2019s claim.\nThe evidence for the State tended to show that on December 19 the defendant delivered ten packages of marijuana to Gossie Hudson, for which he received $50.-00. On December 21, he gave another package of marijuana to Hudson.\nThe defendant did not testify, and this was his right. Neither did he offer other witnesses to refute the State\u2019s evidence. He cross-examined the State\u2019s witnesses with some degree of skill, but left the evidence against him with no contradiction. It was quite sufficient to support the verdicts against him. His exception to the failure of the Court to set them aside is overruled.\nIn his trial, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cxjeiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "M. Hugh Thompson, Court-appointed Counsel for defendant appellant.",
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and James F. Bullock, Deputy Attorney General."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RIP ALSTON.\n(Filed 13 December, 1967.)\n1. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014\nWhere a defendant, after full explanation of Ms rights, repeatedly refuses the court\u2019s offer to appoint him counsel as an indigent, the court may not force counsel upon him, and defendant\u2019s own evidence in this case held to disclose that he had ample mental capacity to determine the matter for himself.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4\u2014\nEvidence in this case held amply sufficient to support defendant\u2019s conviction of illegal possession of marijuana on the dates specified in the indictments.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, E.J., July 1967 Criminal Session (Conflict) Dueham Superior Court.\nThe defendant was charged in two similar indictments with the violation of G.S. 90-88 in that he had illegal possession of marijuana on December 19 and December 21, 1966. With his consent, the cases were tried together and verdicts of guilty were returned. Upon judgments of five (5) years\u2019 imprisonment in both cases, running concurrently, the defendant appealed.\nM. Hugh Thompson, Court-appointed Counsel for defendant appellant.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney General, and James F. Bullock, Deputy Attorney General."
  },
  "file_name": "0278-01",
  "first_page_order": 314,
  "last_page_order": 315
}