State v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 13 November 1929
• Docket Number: 392.
• Citation: 150 S.E. 353,197 N.C. 707
• Parties: STATE v. HUNT.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

150 S.E. 353

197 N.C. 707

STATE v. HUNT.

No. 392.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 13, 1929

Appeal from Superior Court, Davidson County; Harwood, Special Judge.

Dave Hunt was convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Thomasville on a charge of operating an automobile on a public highway while intoxicated. On appeal to superior court defendant was again convicted, and he appeals. Affirmed.

On appeal from conviction in recorder's court, superior court may permit amendment to warrant upon which defendant was convicted.

Walser & Walser, of Lexington, for appellant.

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

At the call of this case for trial in the superior court, the solicitor for the state moved that the warrant upon which defendant was tried and convicted in the recorder's court of the city of Thomasville be amended by inserting therein, after the word "cartway," the words "or other road over which the public had a right to travel." The motion was allowed over the objection of defendant. Defendant's exception to the order of the court allowing the amendment is not sustained. The amendment was allowed in order that the warrant should conform to the statute. Chapter 230, Pub. Laws 1927. The crime charged in the warrant as amended is substantially the same as that charged in the warrant as originally issued. Defendant was not prejudiced by the amendment. The power of the superior court, in proper cases, to permit an amendment of the warrant upon which defendant was convicted in a recorder's court, where defendant has appealed to the superior court from the judgment upon such conviction, is well settled. State v. Walker, 179 N.C. 730, 102 S.E. 404; State v. Price, 175 N.C. 804, 95 S.E. 478; State v. Poythress, 174 N.C. 809, 93 S.E. 919. The contention of the defendant that a new offense was charged in the warrant as amended cannot be sustained.

The evidence tended to show that the defendant, while intoxicated, was operating an automobile on a road which leads from a public highway to the place of business of the lessee of the land over which the road is located. The public was invited to use this road and had a right to travel over the same. The evidence was submitted to the jury under instructions which are free from error. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.