State v. Golden
| Decision Date | 02 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 355.,355. |
| Citation | 166 S.E. 311,203 N.C. 440 |
| Parties | STATE. v. GOLDEN et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; Harding, Judge.
Ruby Golden and Emmett Golden were convicted of violating the prohibition laws, and they appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictments charging the defendants with violations of the prohibition laws.
From an adverse verdict and judgment of six months on the roads, the defendants appeal.
Folger & Folger, of ML Airy, for appellants.
D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The appeal must be dismissed for the following reasons:
1. The transcript fails to show the organization of the court (State v. May, 118 N.C. 1204, 24 S. E. 118), or that the "court was held by a judge authorized * * * to hold it, and at the place and time prescribed by law." State v. Butts, 91 N.C. 524.
2. No indictment against Ruby Golden appears in the record. State v. McDraughon, 168 N. O. 131, 83 S. E. 181. Only the one against Emmett Golden has been sent up.
it is the duty of appellant to see that the record is properly made up and transmitted. State v. Frizell, 111 N.C. 722, 16 S. E. 409.
3. The verdict has been omitted from the transcript. Riggan v. Harrison, 203 N.C. 191, 165 S. E. 358.
it is the uniform practice to dismiss the appeal for failure to send up necessary parts of the record proper. Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N.C. 788, 156 S. E. 126; Waters v. Waters, 199 N.C. 667, 155 S. E. 564.
The principal defense was that the offense charged, if committed at all, was committed in Virginia. This was a matter of defense, available, it is true, under the general plea of not guilty, with the laboring oar cast upon the defendants. His honor so charged, and, in this, there was no error. State v. Barrington, 141 N.C. 820, 53 S. E. 663.
Appeal dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Strickland, 32PA82
...Like the defense of insanity, duress is an affirmative defense "with the laboring oar cast upon the defendant." State v. Golden, 203 N.C. 440, 441, 166 S.E. 311, 312 (1932). The burden of proving an affirmative defense to the satisfaction of the jury is upon the defendant in a criminal tria......
-
State v. Stafford, 90.
......State v. Golden, 203 N. C. 440, 166 S. E. 311. First, the transcript fails to show the organization of the court (State v. May, 118 N. C. 1204, 24 S. E. 118), or that the "court was held by a judge authorized * * * to hold it, and at the place and time prescribed by law." State v. Butts, ......
-
State v. Stafford
...... . . The. record contains a number of exceptions, all of which have. been examined, and none discovered of sufficient merit to. warrant a new trial; but for jurisdictional reasons, the. appeal must be dismissed. State v. Golden, 203 N.C. 440, 166 S.E. 311. . . First,. the transcript fails to show the organization of the court (. State v. May, 118 N.C. 1204, 24 S.E. 118), or that. the "court was held by a judge authorized *** to hold. it, and at the place and time prescribed by law.". State v. ......
-
State v. Jenkins
...for failure to show warrant; State v. Currie, 206 N.C. 598, 174 S.E. 447, dismissed for failure to supply lost indictment; State v. Golden, 203 N.C. 440, 166 S.E. 311, dismissed for failure to show organization of court, bill, warrant or verdict; State v. Ravensford Lumber Co., 207 N.C. 47,......