State v. Ballangee

Decision Date05 May 1926
Docket Number481.
Citation132 S.E. 795,191 N.C. 700
PartiesSTATE v. BALLANGEE.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Caldwell County; Shaw, Judge.

H Ballangee was convicted for operating a lottery, and he appeals. Judgment arrested.

The defendant was indicted for operating a lottery, and upon the return of a special verdict he was adjudged guilty. From the judgment pronounced, he appealed.

W. C Newland, of Lenoir, for appellant.

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

ADAMS J.

The indictment charges that the defendant "unlawfully and willfully did operate a lottery, to wit, a slot machine (chapter 138, Pub. Laws 1923), against the form of the statute," etc. The statute provides:

"It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to operate, keep in his possession or in the possession of any other person, firm or corporation, for the purpose of being operated, any slot machine that shall not produce for or give to the person who places coin or money, or the representative of either, the same return in market value each and every time such machine is operated by placing money or coin or the representative of either therein. Each time said machine is operated as aforesaid shall constitute a separate offense." 3 C. S. § 4437(a).

Does the indictment charge a breach of this statute? An indictment shall be deemed to be sufficient in form if it express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner; and it will not be held defective by reason of any informality or refinement if the matter appearing therein be sufficient to enable the court to proceed to judgment. C. S. § 4623. The specific question is whether the purported breach as set out in the bill is "plain intelligible, and explicit." Chief Justice Ruffin suggested that an informality can embrace, perhaps, only the mode of stating the fact, but if the fact be one which essentially enters into the offense, it must be set forth ( State v. Moses, 13 N.C. 452, 464); and Judge Gaston observed that a refinement is understood to be the verbiage which is frequently found in indictments setting forth what is not essential to the constitution of the offense, and therefore not required to be proved (State v. Gallimon, 24 N.C. 372). But in each of these cases it was said in substance that the statute does not supply the omission of a distinct averment of any fact or circumstance which is an essential constituent of the offense charged. To the same effect is a uniform line of subsequent decisions. Every crime consists of acts done or omitted, and it is not sufficient to charge a defendant generally with the commission of a particular offense (unless the form of the indictment is prescribed by statute), but all the essential facts and circumstances must be specifically set forth. State v. Hathcock, 29 N.C. 52; State v. Eason, 70 N.C. 88; State v. Woody, 47 N.C....

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Johnson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 23, 1942
    ... ... 662, Ind. and Inf., § 103; 50 C.J ... 810, Prostitution 25; State v. Liles, 78 N.C. 496; ... State v. Bragg, 86 N.C. 687; State v. Deal, ... 92 N.C. 802; State v. Watkins, 101 N.C. 702, 8 S.E ... 346; State v. Whedbee, 152 N.C. 770, 67 S.E. 60, 27 ... L.R.A., N.S., 363; State v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, ... 132 S.E. 795; State v. Watkins, 200 N.C. 692, 158 ... S.E. 393; State v. Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594; ... United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto ... 542, 23 L.Ed. 588; United States v. Simmons, 96 U.S ... 360, 24 L.Ed. 819; United States v. Carll, 105 U.S ... ...
  • State v. Howley
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1941
    ...facts and circumstances essential to bring the case within the statutory definition of the offense must be specifically set forth. State v. Ballangee, supra, State v. Jackson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E.2d 149, 131 143, and cases cited therein. The bill of indictment in the present case, when tes......
  • State Carolina v. Billinger
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • July 5, 2011
    ...intelligible, and explicit manner. State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 376, 130 S.E.2d 638, 639 (1963) (quoting State v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 702, 132 S.E. 795, 795 (1926)). Accordingly, the State's failure to allege an essential element of the crime of conspiracy renders the indictment in......
  • State v. Barnett
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 2012
    ...in original) (quoting State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 376, 130 S.E.2d 638, 639 (1963) (in turn quoting State v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 702, 132 S.E. 795, 795 (1926))). In two recent decisions, State v. Harris, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 724 S.E.2d 633, and State v. Herman, ––– N.C.App. ––––, 726......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT