State v. Eure
| Decision Date | 13 September 1916 |
| Docket Number | 1. |
| Citation | 89 S.E. 788,172 N.C. 874 |
| Parties | STATE v. EURE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Gates County; Bond, Judge.
In the case of the State against Joe Eure, judgment was entered on the bond of defendant, and the sureties appeal. Affirmed.
A bond to appear at court and not depart the same without leave held to continue after a mistrial was ordered and the court adjourned; no new bond or discharge being ordered.
Ward & Grimes, of Washington, N. C., and A. P. Godwin, of Gatesville, for appellants.
The Attorney General and T. H. Calvert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant gave bond with the usual conditions to appear at court "and not depart the same without leave." He was put on trial, and, the jury not having agreed, on Saturday afternoon a juror was withdrawn and a mistrial ordered. No order was made placing the defendant in custody nor requiring him to give new bond, nor discharging him. After the mistrial was ordered the prosecution asked that the bond be increased. The judge, being told on inquiry that the bond was $650, declined to increase the amount, but no order was made for a new bond, and court was adjourned sine die. At the next term of court, the prisoner failing to appear when called, judgment nisi was entered, and notice issued to the sureties. Upon hearing counsel for the sureties, the court entered judgment absolute against them. In this there was no error. An appearance bond by its terms, and under the uniform ruling of the court, requires that the defendant appear term after term until he is discharged on a verdict of acquittal or by order of the court. An appearance bond is in lieu of custody in jail, in which case the defendant could not be released until discharged by order of the court. In State v. Smith, 66 N.C. 620, where a defendant upon the continuance of his case was required to give bond for his appearance at the next term, but departed without doing so the court held that the sureties on the bond were responsible for the failure of the defendant to appear at the next term. In State v. Jenkins, 121 N.C. 637, 28 S.E. 413, the above case is cited with approval, the court holding that the defendant continues under the penalty of the bond until the trial is terminated or he is discharged by order of the court. In State v. Morgan, 136 N.C. 602, 48 S.E 607, the court held:
In State v. White, 164 N.C. 410, 79 S.E. 298, the court holds that the recognizance binds the defendant to three things:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Welborn
... ... bondsmen from producing him, at the April term, Guilford ... superior court, agreeably to the provisions of his ... recognizance. Granberry v. Pool, 14 N.C. 155; 6 C.J ... 1026; 3 R. C. L. 52; Annotation, 26 A. L. R. 412. Hence, ... under the principles announced in State v. Eure, 172 ... N.C. 874, 89 S.E. 788, State v. Holt, 145 N.C. 450, ... 59 S.E. 64, and State v. Morgan, 136 N.C. 593, 48 ... S.E. 604, the cases, as well as the hearing on the scire ... facias, might well have been continued until this legal ... impediment is removed. Adrian v. Scanlin, 77 N.C ... ...
-
State v. Graham, No. COA09-416 (N.C. App. 12/8/2009)
...the defendant is placed in custody or gives a new bond or is discharged on acquittal or by order of the court. State v. Eure, 172 N.C. 874, 876, 89 S.E. 788, 789 (1916). In the instant case, defendant executed an "Appearance Bond for Pretrial Release" that was not only signed by defendant, ......
- White v. Norfolk-Southern Ry. Co.