State v. Harris

• Decision Date: 30 October 1907
• Citation: 59 S.E. 115,145 N.C. 456
• Parties: STATE v. HARRIS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

59 S.E. 115

145 N.C. 456

STATE v. HARRIS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 30, 1907

Appeal from Superior Court, Anson County; Councill, Judge.

Riley Harris was convicted of perjury, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Defendant was indicted and convicted for perjury on the following bill of indictment: "The jurors for the state, upon their oaths, present that Riley Harris, late of the county of Anson, on the _____ day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and six, with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, did unlawfully commit perjury upon the trial of an action in the court of a justice of the peace in Anson county, wherein the state of North Carolina was plaintiff and Jeff. Ratliff was defendant, by falsely asserting on oath that he, the said Riley Harris, never turned over to Y. C. Allen his account and statement of rent due him, the said Riley Harris by Jeff. Ratliff as security for the payment of house rent due said Y. C. Allen, and that he never told Jeff. Ratliff to pay the same to Y. C. Allen and that he, the said Riley Harris, never delivered to Y. C Allen a statement of said account of rents due him by W. T Ingram, knowing the said statement or statements to be false against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. Robinson, Solicitor." There was judgment on the verdict, and defendant excepted and appealed.

An indictment drawn up in accordance with Laws 1889, p. 86, c. 83, setting out the court, the cause, the statement alleged to be false, the scienter, and charging that defendant "did unlawfully commit perjury," sufficiently apprises defendant of the charge against him.

Clement, Asst. Atty. Gen., and H. H. McLendon, for the State.

J. W. Gulledge, for defendant.

HOKE J.

It is chiefly urged against the validity of this conviction and sentence that the word "feloniously" is not used in the bill of indictment. The question is distinctly and properly raised both by motion to quash and in arrest of judgment, but we are of opinion that the position cannot be sustained. It has been frequently held with us that in indictments for felonies the word "feloniously" must appear as descriptive of the offense, and that no other or equivalent term will suffice. This principle, however does not obtain where the Legislature otherwise expressly provides, and so it is here. Our Revisal of 1905, c. 80, § 3247, establishes a form for a bill of indictment for perjury, and enacts in express terms that this form shall be sufficient. The statute does not make the word "feloniously" a part of the bill, and it does not appear in the form set out, and the same is therefore no longer required. The General Assembly has the undoubted right to enact legislation of this character to modify old forms of bills of indictment, or establish new ones, provided the form established is sufficient to apprise the defendant with reasonable certainty of the nature of the crime of which he stands charged. "To be informed of the accusation against him" is the requirement of our Bill of Rights; and, unless such legislation is in violation of this principle, or in contravention of some express constitutional provision, it should and must be upheld by the courts. The act in question is open to no objection of the kind suggested. "Did unlawfully commit perjury" is the descriptive part of the charge required by the statute, giving in addition the court, the cause, the statement alleged to be false, with proper averments, also, as to the scienter, and by the terms of such bill, therefore, the defendant...