State v. Dorsett, 682--A
| Citation | 272 N.C. 227,158 S.E.2d 15 |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 682--A,682--A |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. George F. DORSETT. STATE of North Carolina v. Larry Franklin DORSETT. STATE of North Carolina v. Tommy YOW. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Staff Atty. A. A. Vanore, Raleigh, for the state.
Jordan, Wright, Henson & Nichols, Greensboro, for defendant appellees.
Section 13--12 of the Greensboro Code of Ordinances provides:
'(a) Subject to the provisions of this section, the creation of any unreasonably loud, disturbing and unnecessary noise in the city is prohibited. Noise of such character, intensity, and duration as to be detrimental to the life or health of any individual is prohibited.
'(b) The following acts, among others, are declared to be loud, disturbing and unnecessary noises in violation of this section, but said enumeration shall not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:
(1) Blowing horns. The sounding of any horn or signal device on any automobile, motorcycle, bus, or other vehicle, except as a danger signal, so as to create any unreasonable loud or harsh sound, or the sounding of such device for an unnecessary and unreasonable period of time.
(2) Radios, phonographs, etc. The playing of any radio, phonograph or any musical instrument in such manner or with such volume, particularly during hours between eleven o'clock p.m. and seven o'clock a.m. as to annoy or disturb the quiet, comfort, or repose of any person in any dwelling, hotel, or other type of residence.
(3) Pets. The keeping of any animal or bird, which, by causing frequent or long continued noise, shall disturb the comfort and repose of any person in the vicinity.
(4) Use of vehicle. The use of any automobile, motorcycle, or vehicle so out of repair, so loaded, or in such manner as to create loud or unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other noise.
(5) Blowing whistles. The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any stationary boiler, except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work or as a warning of danger.'
The warrants, in compliance with G.S. § 160--272, sufficiently plead the Greensboro Ordinance on which the criminal prosecutions are based.
In the superior court, defendants asserted, as one of the grounds for their motions to quash the warrants, that the ordinance 'was unconstitutional for vagueness.' However, Judge Crissman expressly declined to rule on this question. Nor has this question been discussed in the briefs or on oral argument in connection with the present appeal. Under these circumstances, 'in conformity with the well established rule of appellate courts, we will not pass upon a constitutional question unless it affirmatively appears that such question was raised And passed upon in the court below.' (Our italics.) State v. Jones, 242 N.C. 563, 89 S.E.2d 129.
The single question before us on this appeal is whether the court erred in quashing the warrants 'on the ground that each warrant failed to allege a violation of the ordinance in question.'
In a criminal prosecution for a statutory offense, including the violation of a municipal ordinance, the warrant or indictment is sufficient if and when it follows the language of the statute or ordinance and Thereby charges the essentials of the offense 'in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner.' G.S. § 15--153; State v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 86 S.E.2d 774; State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 130 S.E.2d 638. If the words of the statute fail to do this they 'must be supplemented by other allegations which so plainly, intelligibly and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the accused and the court as to the offense intended to be charged.' State v. Cox, 244 N.C. 57,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Com'r of Ins. v. North Carolina Rate Bureau
...question unless it affirmatively appears that such question was raised and passed upon in the court below." State v. Dorsett & Yow, 272 N.C. 227, 229, 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967) (emphasis in the original). In State v. Cumber, 280 N.C. 127, 185 S.E.2d 141 (1971), the constitutional question wa......
-
State v. Cortes-Serrano
...it was raised and passed upon in the court below. State v. Hunter, 305 N.C. 106, 112, 286 S.E.2d 535, 539 (1982); State v. Dorsett, 272 N.C. 227, 229, 158 S.E.2d 15, 17 (1967). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant adequately preserved the issue for appeal, we have previously held that th......
-
State v. Squire
...v. Burton, 243 N.C. 277, 90 S.E.2d 390 (1955); State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E.2d 917 (1953); State v. Dorsett and State v. Yow, 272 N.C. 227, 158 S.E.2d 15 (1967)." State v. Russell, 282 N.C. 240, 192 S.E.2d 294 (1972). Since the defendants Squire and Brown could not have been lawfull......
-
M.E. v. T.J.
...this Court declined to consider a constitutional issue after the trial court "expressly declined to rule on th[e] question." 272 N.C. 227, 229, 158 S.E.2d 15 (1967).¶ 53 Here, plaintiff properly raised and received a ruling on her claim that it would be unconstitutional to deny relief under......