State v. Francis
| Citation | 72 S.E. 1041,157 N.C. 612 |
| Parties | STATE v. FRANCIS. |
| Decision Date | 13 December 1911 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
1. Criminal Law (§ 970*)—Arrest of Judgment—Defective Indictment.
To arrest a judgment after verdict of guilty, the indictment must be so defective that judgment cannot be pronounced on it.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2445-2462; Dec. Dig. § 970.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 970*)—Arrest of Judgment—Defective Indictment.
The caption of an indictment is no part of it, and the omission in the caption of the county in which the indictment was found is not ground for arrest of judgment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2445-2462; Dec. Dig. § 970.*]
3. Criminal Law (§ 970*)—Arrest of Judgment—Defective Indictment.
The failure to insert in the caption of the indictment the term of court at which it was returned is not ground for arrest of judgment, especially where the record shows that the indictment was returned at a specified term.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec Dig. § 970.*]
4. Criminal Law (§ 970*)—Arrest of Judgment— Indictment— Requisites.
Time is not of the essence of the offense of unlawfully manufacturing spirituous liquor, and, under Revisal 1905, § 3255, providing that no judgment shall be stayed for the failure of the indictment to state the time of the commission of the offense, an indictment need not state the time of the commission of the offense to support it against a motion in arrest.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 970.*]
5. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 224*)—Unlawfully Manufacturing Spirituous Liquors—Prosecution—Evidence.
The state on a trial for the unlawful manufacture of spirituous liquor must show that the offense was committed within two years.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Dec. Dig. § 224.*]
6. Criminal Law (§ 968*)—Arrest of Judgment—Evidence—Instructions.
The failure of the state to show that the offense of unlawfully manufacturing spirituous liquors was committed within two years should be taken advantage of by accused by a requested instruction, and is not available in arrest of judgment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2437; Dec. Dig. § 968.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, McDowell County; Long, Judge.
James Francis was convicted of unlawfully manufacturing spirituous liquors, and he appeals. Affirmed.
After verdict defendants moved in arrest of judgment. The bill is as follows:
The court overruled the motion, and pronounced judgment.
D. F. Morrow, for appellant.
T. W. Bickett, Atty. Gen., and Geo. L. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is much the best that solicitors should fill in the blanks in the printed forms of indictment. It expedites the administration of the criminal law, and prevents such appeals as this. Had the defendant" moved to quash this bill or for a bill of particulars to supply him with any needed information, it is probable the one motion or the other would have been allowed. The defendant has not been taken at any disadvantage, for he allowed the trial to proceed and attacked the bill only after he had been convicted.
To arrest the judgment, it must appear that the bill is so defective that judgment cannot be pronounced upon it.
The fact that the county in which the bill of indictment was found does not appear in the caption of the indictment does not constitute ground for arresting the judgment. State v. Wasden, 4 N. C. 596; State v. Brick-ell, 8 N. C. 354; State v. Lane, 26 N. C. 121; State v. Dula, 61 N. C. 441; State v. Sprinkle, 65 N. C. 463; State v. Williamson, 81 N. C. 541; State v. Arnold, 107 N. C. 864, 11 S. E. 990. The caption is no part of the indictment, and its omission is no ground for arresting judgment. State v. Arnold, 107 N. C. 864, 11 S. E. 990, and cases cited.
The term of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammonds
...State v. Moses, 13 N.C. 452; State v. Barnes, 122 N.C. 1031, 29 S.E. 381; State v. Hester, 122 N.C. 1047, 29 S.E. 380; State v. Francis, 157 N.C. 612, 72 S.E. 1041; State v. Ratliff, 170 N.C. 707, 86 S.E. 997; State v. Carpenter, 173 N.C. 767, 92 S.E. 373; State v. Poythress, 174 N.C. 809, ......
-
State v. Bissette
...219 N.C. 331, 13 S.E.2d 529, or that the indictment is otherwise so defective that it will not support a judgment, State v. Francis, 157 N.C. 612, 72 S.E. 1041; State v. Taylor, 172 N.C. 892, 90 S.E. 294; State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 27 S.E.2d 140; State v. Cochran, The second count in t......
-
State v. Gaston
...for a new trial, State v. White, 162 N.C. 615, 77 S.E. 999, or by a motion in arrest of judgment. State v. Brady, supra; State v. Francis, 157 N.C. 612, 72 S.E. 1041; State v. Hawkins, 155 N.C. 466, 71 S.E. 326; State v. Jarvis, supra; State v. Wilson, supra; State v. Furr, 121 N.C. 606, 28......
-
State v. Howley Et Ux, 217.
...of this Court, among which are: State v. Moses, 13 N.C. 452; State v. Gallimon, 24 N.C. 372; State v. Whedbee, supra; State v. Francis, 157 N.C. 612, 72 S.E. 1041; State v. Ratliff, 170 N.C. 707; 86 S.E. 997; State v. Carpenter, 173 N.C. 767, 92 S.E. 373; State v. Sauls, 190 N.C. 810, 130 S......