State v. Ditmore
| Decision Date | 27 May 1919 |
| Docket Number | (No. 577.) |
| Citation | 99 S.E. 368 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. DITMORE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Graham County; McElroy, Judge.
John Ditmore was indicted for refusing to help sheriff to make arrest upon being commanded to so do. Verdict of not guilty entered by court upon special verdict, and the State excepts and appeals. Reversed.
The state appeals from a judgment upon this special verdict:
"On the 1st day of September 1918, J. A. Ammons, sheriff of Graham, had in his possession a capias with him, which was issued from the superior court of Graham on a bill of indictment, commanding him to arrest one Mack Burchfield; that he took Sherman Crisp and eight others with him and started to the home of said Burchfield to make the arrest, and on the way they passed the defendant in the road; that he told the defendant that he would have to summon him to go and help arrest some parties for whom he had a warrant, but did not tell who the parties were; that the defendant stated he did not want to go, whereupon the sheriff told him that if he did not go he would have to arrest him and take him, thereupon the defendant started with the sheriff and those who accompanied him and went for a short distance until he came near to his house, when he left the party and went in the direction of his house; that the sheriff, upon being told that he had gone, went to his house and made a search for him, but failed to find him."
The court, being of the opinion that in order to constitute a legal summons it was necessary that the sheriff should have told the defendant who it was that he was going to arrest, adjudged that the defendant was not guilty, and the verdict was so entered, to which the solicitor for the state excepted and appealed.
The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Nash, for the State.
T. M. Jenkins, of Robbinsville, for appellee.
"If any person, after having been lawfully commanded to aid an officer in arresting any person, or in retaking any person who has escaped from legal custody, or in executing any legal process, willfully neglects or refuses to aid such officers, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanor."
The essential elements of the offense defined in the above section are that the defendant, when commanded to aid an officer in arresting any person, or in retaking any person escaped from legal custody, or in executing any legal process, should willfully neglect or refuse to aid such officer. These facts all appear in the above special verdict. As is said in Bishop, New Cr. Proc. (2d Ed.) § 185:
"An officer who is making an arrest, either with or without a warrant, or securing his prisoner afterward, may, if he deems it 'necessary, call upon a bystander for help, or even command the aid of all persons in his precinct. A refusal is indictable, provided he is proceeding by lawful authority; or if he is"not, his command will be a justification to one who, knowing his official character, comes in good faith to his assistance."
The statute does not require that the person so summoned by the officer to aid in the arrest should be informed as to the court from which the process issued, or the nature of the offense, or the name of the party to be arrested. Whether or not he had knowledge of these matters, it would in no wise affect his duty to obey the summons of the officer. It is sufficient if the officer...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown, 415
...of a misdemeanor.' The foregoing statute has been in effect since 1889. This Court, in the opinion by Clark, C. j., in State v. Ditmore, 177 N.C. 592, 99 S.E. 368, states: 'It is his duty as a good citizen, and in obedience to the authority of the state as represented by a lawful officer, t......
- State v. Ditmore