Title: State v. Abernathy
Citation: 145 S.E.2d 5, 265 N.C. 724
Docket Number: 667
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: December 1, 1965

145 S.E.2d 5 (1965)
265 N.C. 724
STATE
v.
Sidney Lee ABERNATHY.
No. 667.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
December 1, 1965.
*3 Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Charles D. Barham, Jr., and Staff Attorney Wilson B. Partin, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.
Cahoon &amp; Swisher, Greensboro, for defendant appellant.
PER CURIAM.
Before pleading to the warrant defendant moved to quash it on two grounds: (1) It fails to allege a criminal offense, and (2) the warrant after charging careless and reckless driving of an automobile in violation of G.S. § 20-140, then specified what defendant did, that this had the effect of limiting the charge in the warrant to these specific acts alleged in the warrant, and these specific acts do not constitute the careless and reckless driving of an automobile within the intent and meaning of G.S. § 20-140.
The warrant charges the offense of careless and reckless driving of an automobile on a public highway in the words of G.S. § 20-140 (a) and (b), and is sufficient to charge the offense set forth in that statute. State v. Wallace, 251 N.C. 378, 111 S.E.2d 714.
State v. Wynne, 151 N.C. 644, 65 S.E. 459, is in point. In that case the indictment charged defendant with unlawfully selling spiritous liquors by the small measure to Alex Weaver and Alonzo Wynne, and then alleged certain acts descriptive of the manner and means by which the offenses were committed. The trial court granted a motion to quash the indictment. *4 The Supreme Court reversed, and the opinion states in part:
In 4 Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, Anderson Ed. 1957, § 1767, it is said:
The warrant here properly and sufficiently charges defendant with the commission of the offense of the careless and reckless driving of an automobile on a public highway in violation of G.S. § 20-140(a) and (b), and the evidentiary matters alleged in the warrant descriptive of the manner of defendant's driving to the effect that he did operate left of center, strike two traffic islands, etc., is rejected as surplusage.
Quashing of indictments and warrants is not favored. G.S. § 15-153. State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E.2d 917. The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to quash the warrant, and defendant's assignment of error to such ruling is overruled.
Defendant introduced no evidence. He assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit made at the close of the State's evidence. The State's evidence shows these facts as stated in the record:
The State's evidence was amply sufficient to carry its case to the jury on the offense charged in the warrant, and defendant's assignment of error to the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit is without merit.
Defendant's assignment of error to the judgment is overruled. The judgment imposed was authorized by the specific language of G.S. § 20-140.
Defendant's other assignment of error is formal.
The judgment below is
Affirmed.