State v. Helms, 74

• Decision Date: 26 February 1958
• Docket Number: No. 74,74
• Parties: STATE, v. Bessie Carpenter HELMS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Page 241

102 S.E.2d 241

247 N.C. 740

STATE, v. Bessie Carpenter HELMS.

No. 74

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Feb. 26, 1958

McLean, Gudger, Elmore & Martin, Asheville, for defendant, appellant.

George B. Patton, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BOBBITT, Justice.

The bill of indictment is based on G.S. § 90-106, which, in pertinent part, provides: 'Fraudulent attempts to obtain drugs prohibited. --No person shall obtain or attempt to obtain a narcotic drug, or procure or attempt to procure the administration of a narcotic drug (a) by fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge; or (b) by the forgery or alteration of a prescription or of any written order; or (c) by the concealment of a material fact; or (d) by the use of false name or the giving of a false address.'

The quoted statutory provisions create and define four separate criminal offenses: (1) obtaining a narcotic drug, (2) attempting to obtain a narcotic drug, (3) procuring the administration of a narcotic drug, and (4) attempting to procure the administration of a narcotic drug, by the means and in the manner set forth in (a), (b), (c) and (d).

In State v. Williams, 210 N.C. 159, 185 S.E. 661, a similar indictment, based on G.S. § 90-88, charging in one count, in the disjunctive, several separate and distinct criminal offenses, was held void for uncertainty. It was decided that the defendant's motion to quash, aptly made, should have been allowed. In the present case, defendant did not move to quash the bill of indictment.

In State v. Albarty, 238 N.C. 130, 76 S.E. 2d 381, 383, the warrant, in a single count, charged alternatively, that is, in the disjunctive, several separate and distinct violations of G.S. § 14-291.1; and the jury found the defendant ' guilty of lottery as charged in the warrant.' The defendant did not move to quash the warrant or in arrest of judgment. The decision was that the verdict was void for uncertainty, i. e., 'not sufficiently definite and specific to identify the crime of which the defendant is convicted.' Based on defendant's exception to the overruling of his motion to set aside the verdict and his exception to the judgment, the verdict and judgment were set aside and the cause remanded 'for further proceedings conforming to law.'

While not the basis of decision on this appeal, we deem it appropriate to call attention again to this rule of pleading in criminal cases: 'The general rule is well settled that an indictment or information must not charge a person disjunctively or alternatively in such manner as to leave it uncertain what is relied on as the accusation against him. Two offenses cannot, in the absence of statutory permission, be alleged alternatively in the same count. As a general rule, where a statute specifies several means or ways in which an offense may be committed in the alternative, it is had pleading to allege such means or ways in the alternative; the proper way is to connect the various allegations in the accusing pleading with the conjunctive term 'and' and not with the word 'or."' 42 C.J.S. Indictments and Informations § 101; State v. Albarty, supra; see slso State v. Jones, 242 N.C. 563, 89 S.E.2d 129.

Decision on this appeal is based on the ground that the bill of indictment is fatally defective.

A bill of indictment that charges 'in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner,' G.S. § 15-153, the criminal offense the accused is 'put to answer,' affords the protection guaranteed by Art. I, secs. 11 and 12, Constitution of North Carolina.

the essentials of a valid bill of indictment and the underlying reasons therefor are fully stated by Parker, J., in State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E.2d 917, and by Winborne, J. (now C. J.), in State v. Cox, 244 N.C. 57, 92 S.E.2d 413, 415, where many prior decisions of this Court are cited and discussed. This distinction is clearly drawn: A bill of indictment for a statutory offense, following substantially the language of the statute, is suffcient if it charges the essential elements of the offense in a plain, intelligible and explicit manner. But this rule is inapplicable 'where the words of the statute do not in themselves inform the accused of the specific offense of which he is accused so as to enable him to prepare his defense or plead his conviction or acquittal as a bar to further prosecution for the same offense, as where the statute characterizes the offense in mere general or generic terms, or does not sufficiently define the crim or set forth all its essetial elements. In such situation the statutory words must be supplemented by other allegations which so plainly, intelligibly and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the accused and the court as to the offense intended to be charged.' State v. Cox, supra. (Our italics)

It is noted that G.S. § 15-143, concening bills of particulars, relates expressly to 'further information not required to be set out' in the bill of indictment.

Under G.S. § 90-106, it is not a crime either to obtain or to attempt to obtain a narcotic drug; and it is not a crime either to procure or to attempt to procure the administration of a narcotic drug. To do so by the means and in the manner set forth in (a), (b), (c) or (d) constitutes the criminal offense. Thus, the means and manner are essentials of the crime.

It is apparent that the indictment alleges no facts tending to identify and particular transaction or the means and manner employed by the accused except in the 'mere general or generic terms' of G.S. § 90106 . There are no factual averments as to the nature of the alleged 'fraud, deceit, misrepresentation, or subterfuge'; or as to the identity or contents of a prescription or other written order alleged to have been forged or altered; or as to what material fact is alleged to have been concealed: or as to what false name was used or what false address was given.

Whether by forgery or alteration of a prescription or other written order, or by concealment of a material fact, or by using a...