# Petition — Honeycutt v. North Carolina

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0223%3A1

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Petition
- **Published:** January 1, 1976
- **Citation:** 428 U.S. 903

## Text

© SsUPREMi Cour or THE oe cacti ellie sass

October Term, 193

er er a

BILLY HONLYCUTT,
Petitionc Ye
a“V.°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

- eee oe + ee

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CLRTIOM'.RI TO THL
SUPROME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RUSS@ELL J. LANIER, JR.
P. O. Box 87
Kenansville, North Carolina 20349

ADAM STiN
Chanbers, Stein, Ferg
157 Last Roserary Strect
Chapel ill, North Carolina

* ,
uson & La

ho

JACK GREENTLLRG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
DAVID EVAN KENDALL
PEGGY C. DAVIS
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

ANTHONY G. AMSTORDAM
Stanford University Law School
Stanford, California %43305

JACK HIMMELSTEIN
435 west 116 Strect
New York, New York 1002

ATTORSNLZS FOR PETIPTICA

INDIX
Page

Citation to Opinions 3c low coe eee ese eereereeeeerseeeeeereeee 1

Jurisdiction coo ee wee eee eee reese esr eseeereeereerereeeeee ee % & eee 1

Questions

Presented eco eeeeesee eee ere ere eeereeereereeeer eee e &

Constitutional and Statutory Provisions Involved...e..-- 2

Statement

cece ce eee ee ee eeeseeeseseeeeseeseseseseeeeeeeeeer?

How the Federal Questions Were Raised and Decided

Below

10

Reasons for Granting the Writ .eccecccccesccceeececceces 12

I.

Ii.

The Court Should Grant Certiorari to
Consider Whether the Imposition and
Carrying Out of the Sentence of Death
for the Crime of Murder Under the Law
of North Carolina Violates the Eighth
or Fourteenth Amendment to the Consti-
tution of the United StateS wrcccceeecenserecess 12

The Court Should Grant Certiorari to

Consider Whether the Sixth or Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the

United States Requires that a Transcript

Be Made of the Voir Dire Examination of
Prospective Trial Jurors in a Capitai Case,
So As To Assure a Record of Sufficient
Completeness toPreserve an Indigent De fend-
ant's Rights Against Unconstitutional Methods
of Jury Selection Such as those Condemned by
Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).. 14

Conclusion eeceoe eee ee eee ee seeseeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee 23

ee ee ee eee e+

TABLIZ OF CASLS
Page

Aiken v. Washington, 403 U.S. 946 rev'g 75 Wash.
421, 452 P.2d 232 C1969) ccccccccescoconcessesesesees 19

Andres v. United States, 333 U.S. 740 (1948) .cccccces 22
Beecher v. State, 268 Ala. 1, 256 So.2d 154

(1971) rev'd on other grounds, 408 U.S.

234 (1972) .ccccccccccccccaccecscesecescceceecceeees 17
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (1969) ..ceccccceccecs 22
Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1 (1966) ...ccccccceceees 22
Boulden v. Holman, 394 U.S. 478 (1969)... .cccccececees 15,19
Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968) ....... 5
Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 50G (1962) ...ceeeeeeceee 22
Dillard v. North Carolina, No. 73-GB75 ceccccceescecs 12,13
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (1963) ....-seeees 20
Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (1963) ....eeeeeees 20,21

v. Louisiana, 403 U.S. 946 (1971),

Dup? essi .
tate v. Hudson, 253 La. 992, 221

rev'g &
So. 2a 484 (1°69) eeeeeveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeveeeeeeeeeee eee @ 20, 21

Edwards v. State, 287 Ala. 588, 253 So.2d 513 (1971). 17

Eskridge v. Washington State Board, 357 U.S. 214

(1958) .ccccccccccccesesceseesseseseseseceseseesesees 20

Evans v. State, 430 S.W.2d 502 (Tex. Ct. Crim.
App. 19GB) cd ceceseceseseeeeseesesesesescoceceeseeeseecor 16

Funicello v. New Jersey, 403 U.S. 948 (1971)

rev'g State v. Forcella, 15 N.J. 263, 245 A.2d

181 (2968) cccceetescceceesececeeseseeeseeeseeeeseosee 15

Furman Ve Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 CROTS) ccocsercescesese 12,13,

Garrison v. Patterson, 405 F.2d 696 (CA10O 1969)...... 16
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) .ccccescccsess 20,21
Harris v. Texas, 403 U.S. 947 (1971) rev'g

457 S.W.2d 903 (Tex. Cr. App. 3964) 6066662060668 80660 19

ii

{| :

| Pag:
1

‘| gn re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) ..+6- eerrrrey ys att. 20
i 5

it Lane V. Brown, 372 U.S 477 (1963) .ecceceeererererer® 20

| Liddell v. State, 287 Ala. 299, 251 ©o.2a 601 (1971). 17
' Long Vv. District Court of Towa, 385 U.S. 192 (196G6).. 21

| Marion v. Beto, 434 F.2d 29 (CAS 1971), cert. denied
i} 402 U.S. 996 (RSF) cccccscedneneseseeenssese ee rer. 23

Mathis v. Alaboma, 403 U.S. 946 (1971) rev'g 283 Ala.

’ 308, 216 So. 2d 256 (1903) sdeseseeeucevesaeeeeeaneee"™ 15,16
Mathis Ve New Jer: CY 403 U.S. G46 (1971) eeeerveereeer? 15
Maxwell v. Bishop, 398 U.S. 262 (1970) coceecceeeerres 15

Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (L971) eee eee 16

Pilkington v. State, 46 Ala. App. 716, 248 So.2d 755
cert. denicd, 287 Ala. 739, 248 So.2da 757 (L971)... 17

Pruett v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 946 (1971) rev'g 18 Ohio
St. 2d 167, 248 N.E.2d 605 (1959) weeecceeecereerer® 19

Quintana v. Texas, 403 U.S. 947 (1971) rev'g 441
S.W.2d 1°1 (‘Tex Cx App. 1970) eoeccceeeceseserserere® 1°

Reic Ve Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) ccceccesesesesesee® 22
Ross v. Moffitt, 42 U.S.L.W. 4940 (June 17, 1974) .++- 20

Speck Vv. Illinois, 403 U.S. 946 rev'g 41 111.2d
L177. 242 N.E.2d 203 (1968) .cccccsccccessssesereere” 19

State v. Albert Carey, _ B.C o__e S.E.2d __, North
Carolina Supreme Court No. 19 (Mecklenburg)
(July Re ROUAL ccc cueeGbateeseenseesesesteereee e 13

State v. Anthony Carey. -. ae oS torth
Carolina Supreme Court No. 16 (Mecklenburg)
(July Bs SOGE) 65.606. 04664 CH 608 CHERSEDESESREPOD IME 13

State v. Crowder, 285 N.C. 42, 203 S.E.2d 38 (1974).. 10

State v. Davis, Lenoir County Superior Ct.. No. 74-
Cr-ll0e2, 74 -Cr-1103 (June 1G, 1974) eoceoeereeereereeee 13

State v. Dillard, 285 N.C. 72, 203 S.E.2d 6 (1974)... 10

State v. Foddrell, Caswell County Superior Ct.,
No. 73-Cr-1439 (June te 1974) ccccceseeseeseeeeeeee® 13

| State v. Foster, Lenoir County Superior Ct.,
! No. 74-Cr-1L24u, 74-Cr-1249 (June lo, 1974) omeereeeere 13

iii

State v. Gordon, Mecklenbu

rg County Superior Ct.,

No. 73-Cr-b6107, 73-Cr-56188 (M iy 290 1974) oeveeeee

State v. Henderson, 285 N.C. 1, 203 S.E.2d 10 (1974).

State v. Fernando Hunt, Vance County Superior Ct.,
No. 74-Cr-550, 74-Cr-551, 74-Cr-552 (June 14, 1974).

State v. Rozell Hunt, Anson County Superior Ct.,

No. 74-Cr-1538 (June 13,

BOVE) 66066600 6eeeveneéeeus

State v. Jarrettec, 284 N.C. 625, 202 S.E.2da 721

(L974) cc ccc weere renee eeneeeereesssessesesseseeees

State v. Lowery, Alamance County Superior Ct.,

No. 73-Cr-8718 (June 15,

EOTED cucevecseceseceeeseees

State v. Noell, 284 N.C. 670, 202 S.R.2a 750 (1974)..

State v. Pinkney, Crim. No. 2490 (Cir.Ct.of Palm
Beach, Fla. (July 9, L971) ccccccccccnsvceccccececes

State v. Robbins, Guilford County Superior Ct.,
No. 74-Cr-) S074, 74-Cr-19771 (May 3h. 1974) eoreeeeee

State v. Simmons, Nash County Superior Ct.,

No. 74-Cr-194 (June 13,

ROPES 00 ees 0 thee been eeeeesue

State v. Stcegmann, Cumberland County Superior Ct.,
No. 73-Cr-30527, 73-Cr-3061L5 (May 16, 1974) eseeveee

State v. Strickland, Onslow County Superior Ct.,
No. 74-Cr-3671, 74-Cr-3672, 74-Cr-10568
(June 29, LD74) cece weer weer eres erenereeseseeeeeeseee

State v. Thompson, Rutherford County Superior Ct.,

No. 74-Cr-1222 (June l,

State v. Waddell, 282 N.C.

ROUTE) 660 66HR606Ss OBOE OEE OES

431, 194 S.E.2d 19 (1973).

Stein v. New York, 346 U.S. 156 (1953) ccoc-covcscecece

Strong v. State, 47 Ala. App. 238, 252 So.2da 659

(1971) .cccrcnncccccvcccceeccesesesesesssessessseees

United States ex rel. Weston v. Sigler, 308 F.2d

946 (CA5 > rrr Te TTT eT TT TUTTLE

Whan v. Texas, 403 U.S. 946 (1971) rev'g 438 S.W.2d

9g (Tex .Cr .App.19G9) .ccccccccccccscsessecssscseseecseces

Wigglesworth v. Ohio, 403 U.S. 947 (1971) rev'g
18 Ohio St.2d 171, 248 N.E.2d GO7 (1969)... cceeees

iv

Paqe

13

10

13

13

10

13

10

13
2,3,10,13

22

17

Pade
Willdain Vv. Coordi ’ 349 Uense 375 (1955) eccvctdeeeses 2?
Witherspoon v. Tllineis, 391 U.S. 510 (1968) .cccceess 2,11,14,
15,16,17,18,19, 20,
21,22
Statutes:
28 U.S.C. GL 257 (3) ccc wc wcccccecereeeeseeeseeseesesees 1

North Carolina Ceneral Statutes:

614-17 as ainended by £.B. 157, Chap. 1201,
1973 Sess. Laws (2nd Sess. 1974) ceccesncceeseeeseees 3

§14-17 erseeereeeeeeeeresreeeeeeeeerereeeeeeereeeeere eer e & 2
§15-187 eevee eeerereeeesreeeereeeeeeeeerereereer ree eee eee & 3
§15-1830 eeceereerereesreoereeeerereeereeereeeereeeeeeee ree eee 3

IN Til:
UPd, COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
October Term, 1973

No.

BILLY HONLYCUTT,
7
Petitioner,
-V. —

STATC OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Responddnt.

|

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE
SUPREMY COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Petition prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review
the judgment of the Supreme Court, of North Carolina entered
on April 10, i974.
CITATIONS TO OPINIONS BLLOW
The opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is
reported at 285 N.C. 174, 203 S.E.2d 844 (1974), and is set
out in Appendix A hereto, pp. la-6a, infra. 2
JURISDICTION
The judgment of the Supreme Court of the State of North
Carolina was entered on April 10, 1974, and is set out in
Appendix A hereto. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked
under 28 U.S.C. §1257(3), petitioner having asserted below
and asserting here deprivation of rights ail by the

Constitution of the United States.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED |

Bm

1. Whether the imposition and carrying out of the

sentence of death for the crime of murder under the law of

North Carolina violates the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States?

2. Whether the Sixth or Pourteenth Amendment to the -

Constitution of the United States requires that a transcript

be mace of the voir dire examination of prospective trial

—_— —- oe

jurors in a capital case, so as to assure a record of sufficient

completeness to preserve an indigent defendant's rights against

_-

unconstitutional methods of jury selection such as those con-

demned by Witherspoon v. Flbinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968)?

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTONY
PROVISIONS INVOLVLD

eee +s ee

1. This case involves the Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

—_——— o- « 2

om

Since the Dillurd certiorari petition was filed on June

ll, 1974, 18 additional persons have been sentenced to dic

in this country, making a national total of 121 defendants

presently condcmned to death as a result of a sentence imposed

subsequent to the date of the Furmin decision. In North
Carolina, 12 additional persons have been sentenced to dic

under the procedures approved in State v. Wadtell, 282 N.C.

431, 194 S.£.2d 19 (1973), making a total of 41 persons now

1/

under sentence of death in North Carolina.

ll/ The following death sentences should be added to those
listed in footnote 28, pp. 29-31, of the Dillard petitions:
State v. Sterrann, Cumberland County Superior Ct., No. 73-
Cr-30527, 73-Cr-30615 (May 16, 1974); State v. Gordgg,
Mecklenburg County Superior Ct., No. 73-Cr-56187, 73- Cr-SG)8e
(May 29, 1974) ;Etete v. -, Guilford County Superior Ct.,
No. 74-Cr-19574, 74-Cr-19771 ‘(Hay 31, 1974): State v. Thorpscn,
Rutherford County Superior Ct., No. 74-Cr- 1222 (June L, 1974)3
State v. Folcre!l, Caswell County Superior Ct., No. 73-Cr-143%
(June 7, 1974); State v. Rovell Mmt, Anson County Superior Ct.,
No. 74-Cr-1538 (June Pe 1974); ‘St ate V, | Lo. vOry » Alamance
County Superior Ct., No. 73-Cr-8716 (June 13, 1974); State v.
Simmons, Nash County Superior Ct., Ne. 74-Cr-194 (June 13, 197-
State v. Fornindo Hunt, Vance County Superior Ct., No. 74-Cr-
55 0, 74-Cr-551, 74-Cr-552 (June 14, 1974); State v. Davis,
Lenoir County Superior Ct., No. 74-Cr-1102, 74-Cr-1103 (June
16, 1974); State v. Foster, Lenoir County Superior Ct., No. 74=
Cr-1248, 74-Cr-1249 (June 16, 1974); State v. Strickland,

Onslow County Superior Ct., No. 74-Cr-3671, 74-Cr-3672, 74-Cr-
10568 (June 29, 1974).

Robbiz ne

Since June 11, 1974, the Supreme Court of North Carolina has
vacated death sentences in State v. Anthony Carcy, _N.C.__.
oe F) Ty North Carolina Supreme Court No. 16 (Me :cklenbure)
Quly 1, 1974) and in State v. Albert Carey, _N.C.__. __S.E.2d
__» North Carolina Supreme Court No. 19 (Mecklenburg) (July -
1974) and has remanded these cases for new trials.
There is soces sce 5 a delay between imposition of a sentence cf
death and commitment of the condemned prisoner to Death kow in
Central Prison, Raleigh, North Carolina. This delay account
for the fact that come of the sentences listed supra were me-
posed before June 11, 1974, the date the Dillard petition was
filed.

-13-

Il. TRE COURT SHOULD GRANT CERTLORART TO

- CONSIDER WHETNER THE STSTH OR FOURTEENTH
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ‘THY UNTYLD
STATES REQUIRNS THAT A TRANSCRIPT BE MADE
OF THE VOTE DIRE EXAMINATION OF PROSPECTIVE:
TRIAL JUROLS IN A CAPITAL CAsn, SO AS TO
ASSURE A RECORD OF SUFFICTENT COMPLIETINESS
YO PRESERVE AN INDIGENT DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS
AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL METHODS OF JURY
SELECTION SUCII AS THOSE CONDEMNED BY
WITHERSPOON Ve ILLINOIS, 391 U.S. 510 (1968).

Petitioner was tricd in forma pauperis on a capital charge.

At his trial, no transcript was made of the voir dire examina-

tion of prospective jurors, although the jurors were interrogates
concerning their conscientious and religious seruples against
capital punishment. A stipulation was later entered as to the
12/

form of the questions asked cach veniremen, but the record
does not reveal the responses ef the prespective jurers to there
questions nor whether other questions were asked them on voir
dire. Petitioncr assigned as error in the Supreme Court of
North Carolina the trial court's allowance of “the State's

ste.

Ruse 3. Lovier, Je,
Aefendint appcthint.

Kenatioville, fos

BRANCIL, Justue.

Defeutant by his first assignmecat of of
por contend, that the jury selects: pas.
in this ¢ t a ; ms * pe without ser ‘ is unl
ani ont and who stated tiat Unor ‘
i 4 : : : wen dhited toward convict et
objection to capital pure hoont would
not aliow then to return a j.ualty sverdiet The Uno 1 State Ssuiprene (
in this cae” dressed this sane qucstion im Wa
a sca 0 scent Gueantete ¢ O DELO! GO DOT eos
4a
‘

it sl ! eee
' {2} Pha second a '
you answers piven ft )
it reves! that ary punt .
came because of hes ety
ae prunes Trense tit An apg thete
by the record as certitred
can judy be only os
secorn!. YN w 2d N
mimeet 8 42,

tal
!
1,

4
i
a
roof
!
t
’
‘

e
put)
‘ on

J!

—_--

— ee ees

ik Kc 203 SOUTH VASTLY

ve oi ss 1} rt Ae ee ere
conn * Pot: nly ’ sari it «. ‘ants ee
senontt ni free aes aie? at the
Commits, tert pees tue be f ! wm
favor of conviction, for the Sind of pore
who weld | posturled by the pre pect
of: ! . ’ tod deat’ the } }
of yur \ ‘ ts easel et

pre iit of ef i ‘ ,

accept tl tes wer af the facts atv
tolu a ty

(4) ‘Vhe mers of the wor Cire caso
Wisel tina Lan cuctorte of ¢ a*, ¢€
ther poreny voor fn cau is tes elene
Nate Exire OF | lio re
both the defecdant a: d the Stete shat
persons choccn to decuic the gukt or fmne
cence of the accused will roach taat desi
son solely wtoun the evita srosiced af
trial. Swain ve. Abdatia, 351 US, 2:2, B35

S.C¢. £24, 13 L.ibd.2d 78); Loszan +. Unite

PEVOrTEN, Mf SERIES

[%]} Po femtiot’s wey " sort
of thro ' eof ertonr cin er on
! a4 ‘ aft! te. epee ! "! ' y! thot ‘ gts
State and the dhfentont arejent df tea
trond bey are trpeertiat pry folevsiihe ¥,

Uoited States, 1° CLS App. § Jit
F.2d Ab, cert. dei 7 US, Hla I” See
Wi, KB Fad RIA: State ©. Chath, 20?

NCR, SEMA

In the secent case of State vo Croy tor,

N.C, 203 SLO OS, we find the fol! i
Pertinent? statement:
bie ofeen io eae a taw tia To ‘
an wiliccod jury, tot entirely prop ne
a capital ¢ fer beth the State ore tte
defer ot te nuahe apprapriite
cuncer tt a prospective purot’s ovoral
er teat ! sf » begets, attitig s j
tudes tow ard ec. pital puoaedanent.”

1G} }! re, thy Gee ta eehed tow
spective qerats by the Solretionr were pea
gis hte qoutes beh badeoral ant State « j
Steps Tuer ery feo op ere ft ' hy
an napartiol sul representative jury

Shas ssa ‘ of crror is overrated.

(7) Although asstrted as error, de® oA
of

ae perm MH Gite . te hae Lite ti ‘ tris

Court erred in devyine his motes for a di

ected vere f met grat Vie a it
? .% tale tr ee g

et! ’ ¢" ee 9!

4, i ! ‘ of ds }

‘ ' ob the ; uses.

the { ¢ to carey the ¢ {G the

[6] bin ce fondant cor tes . that
the devth prvuits comstiintes csitel aud tn

usual opaaiclecent im wioldion of th

hoghth Amentinent te the United Stutes

This Court has declared thet pth ae
viction any porton who commits the erove
«?

of burglary in the first degree, first deytece
mundr, arson or cape after WB Janu ry

. , 1973 shall sufter the penalty of dooth,
Fd. 429; State v. Spence, 274 NC, $36, State v. Waddell, 2°2 N.C. 431, 1998 5.4.20
163 S.E2d 555 19. We fully considered the constitution
-— - o-—e i et oO A me Oe oneness cera eee
5a

oP? atten’ tee

’ oof
pet etre
rita 7, ’
1 prs Te
.
i Mg pe dee

aw of Qriite ‘

‘, ve fold

.*

+ te
® 1
tee 4

Croaitor,
fella z

; tes y S
BP, tah ot @
hi spetbeapets Me Mes
javier’ paper's monnl
' +.* — '
tal por hs
" ‘ ‘ ’ |
» Fe i Wie pea
r,t, ne j
ese oy te eure trill
Pe fErtative pry,
of error mw averiethad
yu ! errer, ce fein
mi he. | thet th
; ov, ote at
m4? ’ We thiel it
. ! ® .
¢% Pol Pe ats Pry
% : . :
.
. | % ‘ Or, a e4 ‘
’ ‘ |
. :
at? t a s th
; | ‘ cert ‘ i" ‘
eu? 4
. ,
m vielition of th
, : ‘ _
t te toc | Thi te Tlate
helsce ld thor 1 ; ce
, 4 ‘ ey
wad tae, tant

tape afar 8 } ' )
eT
oA. Ah, Pt SB
tiemed the ces. tat i

-—_——--

_
.
STATE Ve SYUES °
oo '
ality of the Gooth ' ion Bile asf Of on 1 held that ef
Hag hth ant Vea ee tow , nf Sass ' | ,
Unoeted sco ‘ fertoot, om the exe ef eles beaut — oo
State vi Potiette, ae. 7 a is ’ ods eo "” '
721, awl hore neafin 1 ate dest ore 2 shee Ged
Wadd! See alua Stat 4 New Pl iN. ! \ lef] tt '
G7, APS tats v. Palbart, Ne aml te I ‘ D clad met oe
As SP Oa 6. State we Dbemdorscn, NO ment ’ aul thet ef
aw Sk‘ } State © O18 dha, a , statcs t te ict Otiwer,
The het) m ! PIM, Savvette, Nell bee venge ave! taf I tatutory
Dillard, Meatless awh Crowder contre! } woh? take lareat! ty? i"
this assypamncut of errr rerder test resclts wu
This atsipgemem of error te ewermetet fenatont © vente of bas wap!
tasrig t
Examination of each | racot of e¢
fur, cvety atpummom offored by ee I fu Alfie
Gefen int set a cael! peu fale «
tire record @: . & dofecutiot bas mt b. Crivtarts He eey
ceive? & fis tela, tae fiom pic} iil ;
error. W:. ; ‘ te Wt io rer
2 awl to o coumec) t t
Neo crn ond ; ; : _
BORWITT, CoP. end PGGINS ant deetedd bo cuistenta Dante
SdAG, Db. desevt as te Ceath sort . meet :
and woh to ix wl ier nt " ot a —— »'
sentence of fife ieopis * for the 1 The bploce ef '
SONS Shale P) the ch t of » of term bam contest of Hl
Chie! Jesticg Bobtin i ow. Jarrette, | Mate Stara su
a8t NM. G25, 4, A? SEZ 721, 747
1974). 3. Cebeedunt baw Costing)
OMficce’s asiang defer
beer «! t eeeri ers r
Ie. : ferelo it I ‘ Gxt
Ci7~ turtle “4
ot ad i I
to 1 " : ‘ hate a
SUAGE of Maas Ore na — = '
miosis. CLS. 3 )
v.
Bee pa Ww Pe he
Sack Feéwire SVILLS for wth + ’ t4 tre
to. 5 ve!
Rupreawe Court of Newt Caratin 4 Arrest © Te
April ie ras One wio is det: by pola
wreder a oe) roid , :
; ence of a iutosicant bas U
: Defeuloot was corn . Pin Sepories tuts ? and statutory eicht ‘
Court, Wayne Cownty, Morty Martin beef scene GS £0 W.2a)
@riving wha weer the idl of mmtor : ai ans
deatins dager The Coat of Ay . 20 §. Celminoe! Law C~-7%8
N.CLApp. Yer, SHS 114, fownd ne et Adi n of resul f Ye
sor aw) dh fen tint appeak ‘The Suprame test adronmtered tes tetas
arse.
Sore Beye were mee -cgmmenetys — — .

6a

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0223%3A1. Public record. Not legal advice.