Case Name: STATE v. J. R. LIBBY
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1936-01-22
Citations: 209 N.C. 363
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. J. R. LIBBY.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 209
Pages: 363–364

Head Matter:
STATE v. J. R. LIBBY.
(Filed 22 January, 1936.)
Criminal Law G in — Plea of gnilty on prior trial may be proved in subsequent trial for the same offense.
Defendant pleaded guilty in tbe municipal court, but on appeal to tbe Superior Court pleaded not guilty. Held: Proof of tbe plea of guilty on tbe prior trial is competent in tbe Superior Court, and tbe introduction of tbe original warrants, fully identified as tbe records of tbe municipal court, for tbe purpose of corroborating tbe evidence of tbe plea in tbe municipal court, is without error, and is not objectionable as proof of proceedings in a court of record by evidence outside the record.
Appeal by defendant from McElroy, J., and a jury, at June Term, 1935, of Guileord.
No error.
Tbe defendant J. R. Libby pleaded guilty in tbe municipal court of tbe city of High Point for three violations of tbe Turlington Act and gave notice of appeal to tbe Superior Court of Guilford County at tbe June, 1935, Term of tbe Superior Court sitting in Guilford County, North Carolina, before a jury, with Judge P. A. McElroy presiding.
Tbe defendant was again convicted of tbe aforementioned three violations of tbe Turlington Act on three warrants sworn out in tbe High. Point municipal court.
Tbe court consolidated tbe cases for judgment, and all of tbe cases, were consolidated with tbe consent of tbe counsel for tbe defendant for judgment, and tbe defendant was sentenced to serve eighteen months in tbe county jail of Guilford County, North Carolina, to be assigned to-work under tbe State Highway and Public Works Commission. Tbe defendant excepted, assigned error, and appealed to tbe Supreme Court.
Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Aiken for the State.
Gold, McAnally <& Gold for defendant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Tbe defendant contends: "There is tbe fundamental principle of evidence that proceedings in a court of record are evidenced by tbe record, and proof outside of tbe record is inadmissible to establish such proceedings, without proof of tbe loss or destruction of tbe record. Gauldin v. The Town of Madison, 179 N. C., 461."
Tbe above is well settled by law, but is not applicable on tbe present record. Tbe defendant, in tbe High Point municipal court, pleaded guilty on three warrants charging him with tbe unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. He was sentenced and appealed to tbe Superior Court. and pleaded not guilty, and was tried and convicted by tbe jury, and again sentenced, and appealed to the Supreme Court. In tbe Superior Court tbe evidence was plenary as to tbe unlawful possession of intoxicating liquor as charged in the warrants. Tbe original warrants were sent up on tbe appeal, and defendant was tried on same. Tbe warrants were introduced and identified by officers present at tbe bearing when tbe defendant pleaded guilty in tbe High Point municipal court. They were offered to show tbe date and in corroboration of defendant's plea of guilty. Tbe warrants themselves show tbe plea of guilty and were fully identified as tbe records in tbe High Point municipal court.
It is well settled that a plea of guilty on a prior trial may be proved in a subsequent trial for tbe same offense.
In tbe trial in tbe court below, we see no prejudicial or reversible error.
No error.