State v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 20 January 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 723,723 |
| Citation | 117 S.E.2d 742,253 N.C. 799 |
| Parties | STATE, v. James Penny COLEMAN, Jr. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., H. Horton Rountree, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Britt, Campbell & Britt, Lumberton, Nance, Barrington & Collier, Fayetteville, for defendant appellant.
The record shows that defendant entered plea in abatement to the denial of which defendant excepted. This constitutes assignment of error Number 1. But apparently this has been abandoned. Since this exception is not set out in appellant's brief, or in support of which no reason or argument is stated or authority cited, it is taken as abandoned by him. Rule 28 of the Rules of Practice in Supreme Court, 221 N.C. at page 563.
Upon denial of plea in abatement defendant through counsel interposed a plea of former jeopardy and former acquittal, and in support thereof introduced the same two bills of indictment, the first being No. 16032, as above set forth, and the second No. 16447, upon which defendant was put on trial. Defendant likewise introduced the order entered in case No. 16032 in which the facts relating to procedural matters at the former trial are set forth in detail. The plea of former jeopardy was denied and defendant excepts. This constitutes defendant's Exception No. 2.
In the light of the factual situation reflected in the record the bill of indictment No. 16032 was insufficient to charge the offenses. According to the wording of the bill of indictment No. 16032 it is obvious that the State was charging only the two counts of forging the check, and uttering the same. The language used does not allege what the forged endorsement was. Hence to point up the insufficiency thereof, bill of indictment No. 16447 'spells out' the forged endorsement in accurate language.
And as contended by the Attorney General, even though the offense of forgery is charged in statutory language, as argued by defendant, the statutory words must be supplemented by other allegations which so plainly, intelligibly and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the accused and the court as to the offense intended to be charged. See State v. Lytle, 64 N.C. 255; State v. Helms, 247 N.C. 740, 102 S.E.2d 241; State v. Banks, 247 N.C. 745, 102 S.E.2d 245.
Now as to Assignments of Error Numbers 4 and 6 predicated upon exceptions of like numbers to the denial of defendant's motion for judgment as of nonsuit: When taken in the light most favorable to the State the evidence appears to be sufficient to support the charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Oakes
...when an insufficient indictment is quashed, and he is subsequently put to trial on a second, sufficient indictment. State v. Coleman, 253 N.C. 799, 117 S.E.2d 742 (1961). G.S. § 14-7.5 provides that after a defendant has been tried and convicted of the underlying substantive felony, the hab......
-
State v. Nicholson, 8520CS554
... ... It is well settled that an indictment must "so plainly, intelligibly and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the accused and the court as to the offense intended to be charged." State v. Coleman, 253 N.C. 799, 801, 117 S.E.2d ... 742, 744 (1961). It is equally well settled, however, that a conspiracy indictment need not describe the subject crime with legal and technical accuracy because the charge is the crime of conspiracy and not a charge of committing the subject crime. State v ... ...
-
State v. Powell
...intended to be charged,’ “ State v. Nicholson,78 N.C.App. 398, 401, 337 S.E.2d 654, 656–57 (1985) (quoting State v. Coleman,253 N.C. 799, 801, 117 S.E.2d 742, 744 (1961) ), the extent to which any particular indictment complies with this principle necessarily hinges on an analysis of the te......
-
State v. Hardison
...State shows that it is sufficient to carry the case to the jury on both informations under the decisions of this Court. State v. Coleman, 253 N.C. 799, 117 S.E.2d 742; State v. Cranfield, 238 N.C. 110, 76 S.E.2d 353; State v. Ridge, 125 N.C. 655, 34 S.E. 439; 37 C.J.S. Forgery § 34. Defenda......