State v. Brown, 506
Decision Date | 30 April 1958 |
Docket Number | No. 506,506 |
Citation | 248 N.C. 311,103 S.E.2d 341 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE, v. Livingston BROWN. |
Ottway Burton, Don Davis, Asheboro, for defendant, appellant.
Atty. Gen. George B. Patton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard, for the state.
It appears upon the face of the record proper that the verdict is insufficient to support a judgment. State v. Lassiter, 208 N.C. 251, 179 S.E. 891. See, also, State v. Shew, 194 N.C. 690, 140 S.E. 621; State v. Barbee, 197 N.C. 248, 148 S.E. 249.
In the Lassiter case, supra, the defendant was charged in the second count 'with having and possessing a quantity of intoxicating liquor against the form of the statute,' and the jury returned a verdict of 'Guilty of possession.' This Court, in opinion by Stacy, C. J., had this to say: 'The verdict is not sufficient to support a judgment * * * It neither alludes to the warrant nor uses language to show a conviction of the offense charged therein.'
Moreover, in the Lassiter case the Court further declared: 'Had the verdict been 'guilty of possession as charged in the second count,' or simply 'Guilty as charged in the second count,' the situation would have been different, but, when the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without specific reference to the charge, as in the instant case, it is essential that the spelling be correct,' citing State v. Parker, 152 N.C. 790, 67 S.E. 35. See, also, State v. Ellison, 230 N.C. 59, 52 S.E.2d 9.
And in the Shew case, supra, the verdict was 'Guilty of receiving stolen goods,' and the Court called attention to a similar verdict, in almost exact language in the case of State v. Whitaker, 89 N.C. 472, where, speaking to the insufficiency of the verdict as a basis for judgment in opinion by Ashe, J., the Court said: See, also, State v. Parker, supra.
Moreover, in the Barbee case, supra, the verdict, after naming defendants, was 'guilty of having automobile in their possession knowing it to have been stolen.'...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Courtney
...or any other feature of the trial. It is noted further that we are not concerned with a situation such as that considered in State v. Brown, N.C., 103 S.E. 2d 341, and cases cited, where the verdict returned and accepted was insufficient to support the pronouncement of any Section 3620, Rev......
-
State v. Ingram, 173
... ... The Court considered the same point in State v. Brown, 248 N.C. 311, 103 S.E.2d ... 341, where the defendant was charged under an indictment with unlawful possession of intoxicating liquors ... ...
-
State v. Medlin
...in a criminal case has been pointed out by our Supreme Court many times. State v. Ingram, 271 N.C. 538, 157 S.E.2d 119; State v. Brown, 248 N.C. 311, 103 S.E.2d 341; State v. Ellison, 230 N.C. 59, 52 S.E.2d 9; State v. Allen, 224 N.C. 530, 31 S.E.2d 530; State v. Cannon, 218 N.C. 466, 11 S.......
-
Presley E. Brown Lumber Co. v. Textile Banking Co., 380
... ... 309] RODMAN, Justice ... This appeal is from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the complaint for failure to state a cause of action ... The facts alleged may be summarized as follows: Plaintiff, a domestic corporation, is engaged in the ... ...