State v. Dove
| Decision Date | 14 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 219.,219. |
| Citation | 222 N.C. 162,22 S.E.2d 231 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. DOVE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Harnett County; W. C. Harris, Judge.
Arthur Dove was indicted for murder and, at solicitor's election, put on trial for murder in the second degree or manslaughter. From order declaring a mistrial and continuing the case, because of present nonavailability of additional evidence, which state had been granted permission to offer, accused appeals.
Appeal dismissed.
Harry McMullen, Atty. Gen., and George B. Patton and Hughes J. Rhodes, Asst. Attys. Gen, for the state.
Neill McK. Salmon, of Lillington, and C. L. Guy, of Dunn, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted for murder. However, at the solicitor's election he was not put on trial for first degree murder but for murder in the second degree or manslaughter. This was equivalent to taking a nolle prosequi on the capital charge. State v. Gregory, 203 N.C. 528, 166 S.E. 387. At the close of the State's evidence defend-ant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit was denied. The solicitor then moved to be permitted to offer additional testimony. This motion was allowed, and, it appearing that the evidence desired was not presently available, the court ordered a mistrial, and continued the case. The defendant excepted to the ruling of the trial judge, and appealed to this court.
The ordering of a mistrial in a case less than capital is a matter in the discretion of the court. State v. Johnson, 75 N.C. 123, 22 Am.Rep. 666; State v. Upton, 170 N.C. 769, 87 S.E. 328; State v. Ellis, 200 N.C. 77, 156 S.E. 157; State v. Guice, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E. 533; State v. Watson, 209 N.C. 229, 183 S.E. 286. In capital cases only is the judge required to find the facts and place them on record so that upon a plea of former jeopardy the action of the court may be reviewed. State v. Tyson, 138 N.C. 627, 50 S.E. 456; State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 295, 154 S.E. 604.
It is apparent that the appeal is premature and must be dismissed. State v. Andrews, 166 N.C. 349, 81 S.E. 416; State v. Ford, 168 N.C. 165, 83 S.E. 831.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hickey
...in Pearce and Miller previously quoted in this opinion. E.g., State v. Locklear, 226 N.C. 410, 38 S.E.2d 162 (1946); State v. Dove, 222 N.C. 162, 22 S.E.2d 231 (1942); State v. Wall, 205 N.C. 659, 172 S.E. 216 (1934); State v. Gregory, 203 N.C. 528, 166 S.E. 387 (1932); State v. Brigman, 20......
-
Brock v. State of North Carolina
...it be in the interest of justice to do so. This has long been the common-law rule in North Carolina. State v. Brock, supra; State v. Dove, 222 N.C. 162, 22 S.E.2d 231; State v. Guice, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E. 533; State v. Weaver, 35 N.C. 203, 13 Ired.L. The question whether such a procedure ......
-
State v. Bowman
...... when it is necessary to attain the ends of justice. It is a. matter resting in the second discretion of the trial judge. '. See also State v. Guthrie, 145 N.C. 492, 59. S.E. 652; State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604,. and State v. Dove, 222 N.C. 162. 22 S.E.2d 231. . . . Defendant next assigns as error numerous rulings of the court. in permitting the prosecutrix to testify (1) to acts of. sexual intercourse with defendant, (2) that he was the father. of the child in question (3) that he had said to her. ......
-
State v. Ball
...is a matter of discretion. State v. Brown, 266 N.C. 55, 145 S.E.2d 297; State v. Humbles, 241 N.C. 47, 84 S.E.2d 264; State v. Dove, 222 N.C. 162, 22 S.E.2d 231; State v. Guice, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E.2d 533. The judge's action is not reviewable unless there are circumstances establishing gr......