State v. Goings
| Decision Date | 28 November 1887 |
| Citation | 4 S.E. 121,98 N.C. 766 |
| Parties | State v. Goings. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal Practice—Sentence—Separate Offenses.
On the trial of an indictment for larceny of a horse in the first count, under Code N. C.? 1066, and in a second count, under section 1014, for receiving the same horse knowing him to have been stolen, held that, the punishment being different for each offense, the court cannot proceed to judgment on a general verdict of guilty.
Appeal from superior court, Rockingham county.
The Attorney General, for the State. J T. Morehead, for defendant.
The defendant is charged in the indictment in a first count, under the statute, (Code, § 1066,) with the larceny of a horse, and in a second count, under the statute, (Code, § 1014,) with receiving the same horse knowing him to have been stolen, and both counts conclude against the statute. On the trial, there was a general verdict of guilty. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, assigning, as ground for the motion, that the maximum of the punishment for the former offense was 20 years, (Code, § 1066,) and that for the latter was 10 years, (Code, §§ 1074, 1075;) and therefore, as the verdict was general, the court could not intelligently determine upon which count it would proceed to judgment. The court overruled the motion, and gave judgment that lie be imprisoned in the penitentiary for the term of seven years, and he appealed to this court.
We are of opinion that the court should not have proceeded to judgment upon the general verdict of guilty, because the two offenses charged in the indictment were not of the same grade, nor was the punishment the same in each, in contemplation of the statute. In the nature of the matter, the court could not determine for which offense the punishment ought to have been imposed, and therefore could not mete it out as contemplated by the law. The sentence was for but seven years' imprisonment in the penitentiary, but for which offense? The record does not show. If the court had set forth in thejudgment that the punishment was for one of the offenses, and not for the other, it could not have seen upon the record anything indicating for which offense the punishment should have been imposed; and if it imposed the punishment for receiving the stolen horse, it may be it would have imposed a greater measure if it could have known that the defendant stole the horse. The record ought to show upon its face for what particular offense the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Calcutt, 433.
-
State v. Calcutt
... ... not support any judgment because the statutes under which ... [15 S.E.2d 20] ... the two counts were drawn authorize different punishments is ... entirely without merit. The cases which he cites, State ... v. Lawrence, 81 N.C. 522, and State v. Goings, ... 98 N.C. 766, 4 S.E. 121, were decided prior to the enactment ... of the North Carolina statute regulating joinder and ... consolidation in criminal cases. This statute, C.S. § 4622, ... was enacted in 1917, and its effect was to permit charges ... relating to the same transaction or the ... ...
-
State v. Perry, 59A81
...same property, he may be convicted of only one of those offenses. 9 See State v. Davis, 302 N.C. 370, 275 S.E.2d 491; State v. Goings, 98 N.C. 766, 4 S.E. 121 (1887). In summary, we affirm the action of the Court of Appeals in remanding the larceny case for resentencing as upon a verdict of......
-
State v. Meshaw
...for 'receiving' the horse, a general verdict of guilty would not support a judgment. State v. Johnson, 75 N.C. 123; State v. Goings, 98 N.C. 766, 4 S.E. 121. See also, State v. Lawrence, 81 N.C. 522, The same author (36 C.J. Larceny sec. 575) concludes: 'In no jurisdiction, it would seem, c......