State v. Calhoon

• Decision Date: 31 December 1835
• Citation: 18 N.C. 374
• Parties: STATE v. JOHN CALHOON.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

18 N.C. 374

STATE

v.JOHN CALHOON.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1835.

1. The Superior Court may amend the record of its proceedings at any time during the same term; and may thus obviate any objections made to the record of that term.

2. The Supreme Court upon an appeal cannot consider of any objections to the record of the Court below that do not appear in the transcript sent up.

3. It seems that the signing the name of the foreman to the endorsement of "a true bill," on a bill of indictment, though a salutary practice, is not essential to its validity. But whether this be so or not, a variance between the name of the foreman, as appearing upon the record of his appointment, and his signature upon the bill, is immaterial, for his identity must necessarily be known to the Court, and the receiving and recording the bill with his endorsement establishes it

THE defendant was convicted of murder at GUILFORD, on the last circuit, and on his behalf a motion was made in arrest of judgment. It is stated in the transcript to have been founded on the following reasons: 1. That "the caption of the record of the sitting of the Court was not written in full, the entry on the minutes being 'October Term, 1835 : Present, the Hon. William Norwood, Judge.' " 2. That "the name of the prisoner, John Calhoon, was incorrectlyspelt 'John Calhoun on the minutes of the trial"—as to which it is stated in the transcript that by order of the Court at the time of the motion the minutes were corrected, so as to make the spelling of the prisoner's name there the

same with that in the indictment to which he answered upon his arraignment. 3. That one Charles W. Peeples was appointed the foreman of the grand jury, as appeared by the record; but that he did not sign the bill, but one "Chas. W. Peeples." The transcript then states that, upon inspection of the record, his Honor, Judge Norwood, found the two first reasons to be, in fact, untrue; and deeming the third insufficient in law, overruled the motion, and passed sentence of death on the prisoner, from which he appealed.

RUFFIN, C. J., having stated the case as above, proceeded: Whatever foundation in truth there may have been for the allegations of fact, contained in the two first reasons, at the time they were offered in the Superior Court, there is none now. In the transcript sent up, the prisoner's name appears the same throughout; and the term of the Court, as established by law, to have "'begun and held on the fourth Monday after the fourth Monday of September, etc., at the courthouse," etc. If the allegations of the prisoner were true at the time, and the record had been so made up, and brought in that state under revision, the objections would have been open to be taken. But whether valid or invalid, they do not exist now. Indeed, it seems perfectly ridiculous to move a court then sitting, at the proper time and place, not to render judgment, because its record did not show .it to be thus sitting, or because the clerk had misspelled the prisoner's name in one entry, although in the very motion he admits his identity with the person indicted, tried, and convicted. The suggestions...