State v. Guilford
| Decision Date | 31 December 1856 |
| Citation | 4 Jones 83,49 N.C. 83 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. GUILFORD, A SLAVE. |
Where a record shows that a grand jury was drawn and empannelled, sworn and charged to enquire for the State, of and concerning all offences, & c., and by such grand jury, “it was presented in manner and form following, that is to say,” setting out the bill of indictment, the record is sufficient without copying the entry of “a true bill,” usually found on the backs of indictments.
THIS was a TRIAL for MURDER, tried before SAUNDERS, J., at the Fall Term, 1856, of Wake Superior Court.
The prisoner was found guilty of murder, and a motion was made in arrest of judgment, but upon what grounds the record does not show. The motion was overruled and the prisoner appealed. In this Court the prisoner's counsel moved in arrest, upon the ground that it does not appear from the record that the bill of indictment, upon which the prisoner was tried, was found by a grand jury to be a true bill.
That part of the record pertaining to this point, is so fully recited in the opinion of the Court, that it is not deemed necessary to set it forth here.
Attorney General ( Bailey) for the State .
Miller, G. W. Haywood, and Husted, for defendant .
The prisoner's counsel moved to arrest the judgment upon the ground that it does not appear from the record that the bill of indictment was found by the grand jury a true bill; and he insists that, for aught that appears, the prisoner may have been arraigned and tried upon an indictment which had never been passed on by a grand jury.
We think it does appear from the record, without the aid of any presumption, or intendment, that the indictment was passed on by the grand jury, and a true bill found. The record states, “and thereupon by the oath of (18 persons, naming them,) good and lawful men, of the County aforesaid, then and there drawn from the said venire, and then and there empannelled and sworn, and charged to enquire for the State, of, and concerning, all crimes and offences committed within the body of the said County, it is presented in manner and form following: that is to say,” setting out the bill of indictment at large.
The manner of presenting a bill of indictment is, for the grand jury, after having examined the witnesses on the part of the State, touching the allegations set out in the indictment, to come into open Court and return the bill endorsed “A true bill,” which is done by the foreman, acting for the grand jury, and the return is made in their presence. If the grand jury do not pass the bill, they refuse to present it, which is signified by the endorsement made by the foreman, “Not found,” or “Not a true bill,” or “““Ignoramus.”
It is not necessary that the record should set out the manner in which a bill of indictment was presented, or the evidence and memoranda, and entries, from which the record was made up. It is sufficient, and most proper, that the record should only set out the fact that it was presented by the grand jury. This avoids all that useless detail with which records are frequently encumbered; such as, who was appointed foreman, the signature of the foreman, the signature of the attorney for the State, what witnesses were sworn and sent, and (as we find, in many cases, by an examination of the files of the Court,) who was the constable of the grand jury. Such matters constitute no part of the record, but are minutes from which the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thomas
...preferred by its prosecuting attorneys without the intervention of a grand jury. State v. Ledford, 203 N.C. 724, 166 S.E. 917; State v. Guilford, 49 N.C. 83. To forestall like abuses of criminal accusations in the infant commonwealth, they placed the emphatic prohibition 'that no freeman sh......
-
State v. Mcbroom
...publicly returning the bill into the court as true, and the recording or filing it among the records, that make it effectual." In State v. Guilford, 49 N. C. 83, Pearson, J., explaining the distinction between an indictment and a presentment, said: "The manner of presenting a bill of indict......
-
State v. Sultan
...The record that it was presented by the grand jury is sufficient in the absence of evidence to impeach it Pearson, J., in State v. Guilford, 49 N. C. 83; Manly, J., In State v. Harwood, 60 N. C. 226; Ruffin, C. J., in State v. Roberts, 19 N. C. 540; Ruffin, C. J., In State v. Calhoon, 18 N.......
-
State v. Sultan
...The record that it was presented by the grand jury is sufficient in the absence of evidence to impeach it. Pearson, J., in State v. Guilford, 49 N.C. 83; Manly, J., in State v. Harwood, 60 N.C. 226; Ruffin, C.J., State v. Roberts, 19 N.C. 540; Ruffin, C.J., in State v. Calhoon, 18 N.C. 374.......