State v. Brewer
Citation | 129 S.E.2d 262,1 A.L.R.3d 1323,258 N.C. 533 |
Decision Date | 01 February 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 441,441 |
Parties | , 1 A.L.R.3d 1323 STATE of North Carolina v. Plerce Oliver Kidd BREWER, Robert A. Burch, Robert M. Burch, George Masefield, Martin J. Hamilton, Walter Schoenfeldt, Pfaff & Kendall, a corporation, Traffic and Street Sign Company, a corporation. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard, for the State.
Seawell & Harrell, by Bernard A. Harrell, Raleigh, for defendant appellant Brewer.
William T. Hatch, and Elbert Richard Jones, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant appellants Robert A. Burch and Robert M. Burch.
All the defendants, except the corporate defendants, charged in the indictment, prior to pleading to the indictment, filed a joint written motion to quash the indictment, and each and every count therein. The motion to quash covers more than fourteen pages in the record. The motion to quash avers that the first count in the indictment should be quashed for the following reasons: One. It shows on its face the offense charged is a misdemeanor which it alleges occurred on or about 1 August 1957, and therefore the prosecution is barred by the two-year Statute of Limitations, G.S. § 15-1. Two. It 'contains within one count three separate and distinct averments of conspiracy: (a) a conspiracy to violate G.S. § 14-353; (b) a conspiracy that the defendants, with the exception of Robert A. Burch, conspired to offer and promise money to Robert A. Burch, with the intent and purpose of influencing his activities in relation to his employer's business; (c) the defendants, other than Robert A. Burch, conspired that Robert A. Burch would accept money or other gratuities.' This is duplicity and a failure to comply with the requirements of G.S. § 15-152. Three. It fails to comply with the requirements of G.S. § 15-153. Four. G.S. § 14-353, upon which the indictment is based, is unconstitutional and repugnant to the 'due process of law' clause of section one of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and to 'the law of the land' clause of Article I, section 17, of the North Carolina Constitution, in that the statute is so vague and indefinite, it is void for uncertainty, and further the statute constitutes an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable exercise of the police power of the State. The motion to quash alleges that the remaining eleven counts in the indictment should be quashed for substantially the same reasons as the first count in the indictment should be quashed.
The court denied the joint motion to quash the indictment and each and every count therein, and the defendants who made the motion excepted. Whereupon, all the defendants entered pleas of Not Guilty. Defendants Brewer and the two Burches assign as errors the denial to quash the counts in the indictment upon which they were convicted.
Defendant Brewer has filed a brief. The defendants Burch have filed a joint brief. In the two briefs the first question presented for decision is: Whether or not the prosecution of the first count in the indictment is barred by G.S. § 15-1. Defendant Robert M. Burch was acquitted on the first count.
The part of the statute relevant to appellants' contention is: '* * * all misdemeanors except malicious misdemeanors, shall be presented or found by the grand jury within two years after the commission of the same, and not afterwards * * *.' The statute has a proviso, which is not applicable here.
A violation of G.S. § 14-353 is explicitly stated by the statute to be a misdemeanor. The State makes no contention that a violation of G.S. § 14-353 is a malicious misdemeanor. In fact, a violation of this statute is not a malicious misdemeanor. State v. Frisbee, 142 N.C. 671, 55 S.E. 722.
In this jurisdiction a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor. State v. Abernethy, 220 N.C. 226, 17 S.E.2d 25.
'As soon as the union of wills for the unlawful purpose is perfected, the offense of conspiracy is complete.' State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 188, 83 S.E. 972, 979. 'No overt act is necessary to complete the crime of conspiracy,' State v. Davenport, 227 N.C. 475, 494, 42 S.E.2d 686, 699, or as stated in State v. Whiteside, 204 N.C. 710, 169 S.E. 711, 'the 'conspiracy' is the crime and not its execution.'
The indictment was found at the April Assigned Term 1962 of Wake County superior court, and the trial term was the June 1962 Term of said court. The first count in the indictment charges that all the defendants 'on or about the 1st day of August, 1957, as well before as after said date, and continuing from said date until on or about the 1st day of February, 1962 * * * unlawfully and willfully and with common design and set purpose and in a secret manner, did combine, confederate, scheme, agree and conspire together and with each other * * *.'
Appellants argue that in North Carolina a criminal conspiracy is a completed crime as soon as the union of wills for the unlawful purpose is perfected, that no overt act is necessary to complete the crime of conspiracy, that count one in the indictment alleges that the conspiracy existed and was completed on or about 'the 1st day of August 1957,' that the indictment was found at the April Assigned Term 1962, and, therefore, the prosecution on the first count in the indictment is barred by G.S. § 15-1.
Defendant Brewer and defendant Robert A. Burch were convicted on the fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth and eleventh counts in the indictment, all of which charge overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy charged in the first count of the indictment on the following dates respectively: Fifth count, on or about 1 June 1960; sixth count, on or about 16 June 1960; seventh count, on or about 23 August 1960; eighth count, on or about 23 August 1960; ninth count, on or about 1 February 1961; tenth count, on or about 1 February 1961; eleventh count, on or about 1 June 1961. Defendant Robert M. Burch was acquitted on counts five and six
In United States v. Kissel, 218 U.S. 601, 31 S.Ct. 124, 54 L.Ed. 1168, the first count of the indictment alleges Mr. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, speaking for the Court, said in replying to a contention of the defendants in error similar to the contention made here:
In substantial accord with the Kissel case, see Hyde v. United States, 225...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
U.S. v. Perrin
...arguments, other courts have unanimously rejected constitutional attacks on similar commercial bribery statutes. See State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E.2d 262 (1963), App. dismissed, 375 U.S. 9, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 40 (1963); People v. Nankervis, 330 Mich. 17, 46 N.W.2d 592 (1951); ......
-
U.S. v. Gaudreau
...See United States v. Perrin, 580 F.2d 730, 735 (1978); Ex Parte Mattox, 683 S.W.2d 93 (Tex.App. 3 Dist.1984); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E.2d 262, 277 (1963), appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question, 375 U.S. 9, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 40 (1963); People v. Nank......
-
State v. Branch, 1
...the substantive offense do not merge upon proof of the latter. State v. Carey, 285 N.C. 509, 206 S.E.2d 222 (1974); State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E.2d 262 (1963), appeal dismissed, 375 U.S. 9, 84 S.Ct. 72, 11 L.Ed.2d 40 (1963); State v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E.2d 594, cert. den......
-
Williams Electronics Games, Inc. v. Garrity
...was accepting tips in order to seat patrons to condone the practice (still common, especially in nightclubs). Cf. State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E.2d 262, 276 (1963). Or as if Barry, as Williams's agent, had made an unauthorized transaction on Williams's behalf that Williams, after di......