State v. Lee

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Lee

100 S.E.2d 372, 247 N.C. 230, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 657

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided November 20, 1957·No. 511·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Parker, J.

The State’s evidence shows that the defendant was operating his automobile upon a public highway within the State in a drunken condition at a terrific speed, and that an elderly constable, who attempted to apprehend him, was forced from, or ran off, the highway, and was killed.

Defendant’s assignment of error that the judgment of the court was the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 14, of the State Constitution, is overruled. G.S. 20-179 fixes no maximum period of imprisonment as punishment for the first offense of a violation of G.S. 20-138, and it is well settled law in this jurisdiction that when no maximum time is fixed by the statute an imprisonment for two years *231 will not be held cruel or unusual punishment, as prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 14, of the State Constitution. S. v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423; S. v. Miller, 94 N.C. 904; S. v. Farrington, 141 N.C. 844, 53 S.E. 954; S. v. Parker, 220 N.C. 416, 17 S.E. 2d 475; S. v. White, 230 N.C. 513, 53 S.E. 2d 436. The judgment entered in this case was within the limits authorized by G.S. 20-179. S. v. Stone, 245 N.C. 42, 95 S.E. 2d 77; S. v. White, 246 N.C. 587, 90 S.E. 2d 772.

Defendant also invokes the 8th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, with its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This amendment is a limitation upon the Federal Government, and not upon the States. Collins v. Johnston, 237 U. S. 502, 510; 59 L. Ed. 1071, 1079; Pervear v. Commonwealth, 72 U.S. 475, 18 L. Ed. 608; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L. Ed. 672; S. v. Blake, 157 N.C. 608, 72 S.E. 1080.

The indeterminate sentence imposed was authorized by G.S. 148-42.

Defendant’s other assignments of error have been examined, and they are without merit.

In the bill of indictment the defendant’s name is given as David Lee.. The case on appeal, which was settled by Judge Seawell, is entitled State v. David Haram Lee. The record states that the defendant David Haram Lee tendered to the solicitor his statement of the case on appeal, which was signed by E. R. Temple, his attorney of record in this Court.

In the trial below we find

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Parker, J.

The State’s evidence shows that the defendant was operating his automobile upon a public highway within the State in a drunken condition at a terrific speed, and that an elderly constable, who attempted to apprehend him, was forced from, or ran off, the highway, and was killed.

Defendant’s assignment of error that the judgment of the court was the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment within the meaning of Art. 1, Sec. 14, of the State Constitution, is overruled. G.S. 20-179 fixes no maximum period of imprisonment as punishment for the first offense of a violation of G.S. 20-138, and it is well settled law in this jurisdiction that when no maximum time is fixed by the statute an imprisonment for two years *231 will not be held cruel or unusual punishment, as prohibited by Art. I, Sec. 14, of the State Constitution. S. v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423; S. v. Miller, 94 N.C. 904; S. v. Farrington, 141 N.C. 844, 53 S.E. 954; S. v. Parker, 220 N.C. 416, 17 S.E. 2d 475; S. v. White, 230 N.C. 513, 53 S.E. 2d 436. The judgment entered in this case was within the limits authorized by G.S. 20-179. S. v. Stone, 245 N.C. 42, 95 S.E. 2d 77; S. v. White, 246 N.C. 587, 90 S.E. 2d 772.

Defendant also invokes the 8th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution, with its prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. This amendment is a limitation upon the Federal Government, and not upon the States. Collins v. Johnston, 237 U. S. 502, 510; 59 L. Ed. 1071, 1079; Pervear v. Commonwealth, 72 U.S. 475, 18 L. Ed. 608; Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243, 8 L. Ed. 672; S. v. Blake, 157 N.C. 608, 72 S.E. 1080.

The indeterminate sentence imposed was authorized by G.S. 148-42.

Defendant’s other assignments of error have been examined, and they are without merit.

In the bill of indictment the defendant’s name is given as David Lee.. The case on appeal, which was settled by Judge Seawell, is entitled State v. David Haram Lee. The record states that the defendant David Haram Lee tendered to the solicitor his statement of the case on appeal, which was signed by E. R. Temple, his attorney of record in this Court.

In the trial below we find

No error.

State v. Lee, 100 S.E.2d 372, 247 N.C. 230, 1957 N.C. LEXIS 657 (N.C. 1957).

Pincite

100 S.E.2d 372 (State v. Lee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related