State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 22 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 581,581 |
| Citation | 130 S.E.2d 857,259 N.C. 499 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Lillie ANDERSON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Elreta Melton Alexander, Greensboro, for defendant-appellant.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not the warrant to which the defendant pleaded guilty to operating a gambling house was sufficient in form to charge the offense of operating such a house.
If a warrant avers facts which constitute every element of an offense, it is not necessary that it be couched in the language of the statute. State v. Tickle, 238 N.C. 206, 77 S.E.2d 632; State v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769, 12 S.E.2d 654.
Reference to a specific statute upon which the charge in a warrant is laid is not necessary to its validity. Likewise, where a warrant charges a criminal offense but refers to a statute that is not pertinent, such reference does not invalidate the warrant. Strong, North Carolina Index, Indictment and Warrant, section 9, page 561, et seq.
All that is required in a warrant or bill of indictment since the adoption of G.S. § 15-153 is that it be sufficient in form to express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner, and to contain sufficient matter to enable the court to proceed to judgment and thus bar another prosecution for the same offense.
In our opinion, the charge of operating a gambling house set out in the warrant hereinabove set forth, is sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. State v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E.2d 133, and cited cases. This conclusion is supported by our decisions in State v. Webster, 218 N.C. 692, 12 S.E.2d 272; State v. Morgan, 133 N.C. 743, 45 S.E. 1033; State v. Black, 94 N.C. 809. See also Joyce on Indictments, Second Edition, section 499, page 592, and Wharton's Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. 4, section 1758, page 548, et seq.
In State v. Black, supra, the Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Overton
...the indictments and reference in the indictment to the specific statute allegedly violated is immaterial. See State v. Anderson, 259 N.C. 499, 130 S.E.2d 857 (1963). Our courts have treated as surplusage to the indictment any incorrect reference to statutes. E.g. State v. Link, 13 N.C.App. ......
-
State v. Rogers, 247
...sufficient to enable the court to proceed to judgment and thus bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. State v. Anderson, 259 N.C. 499, 130 S.E.2d 857. The instant case and State v. Partlow, 272 N.C. 60, 157 S.E.2d 688, are distinguishable. In Partlow, defendant was charged with ......
-
Doss v. State of North Carolina, C-230-G-65.
...to prepare for trial, and the court to proceed to judgment. State v. Bissette, 250 N.C. 514, 108 S.E.2d 858 (1959); State v. Anderson, 259 N.C. 499, 130 S.E.2d 857 (1963); United States v. Roberts, 4 Cir., 296 F.2d 198 (1961), cert. den. 369 U.S. 867, 82 S.Ct. 1033, 8 L.Ed. 2d 85. With this......
-
State v. Penley
...enable the court to proceed to judgment, and to bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense, it is sufficient. State v. Anderson, 259 N.C. 499, 130 S.E.2d 857 (1963); State v. Daniel, 255 N.C. 717, 122 S.E.2d 704 (1961). An indictment for a statutory offense is sufficient, as a genera......