State v. Hinton

• Citation: 158 N.C. 625,74 S.E. 104
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 20 March 1912
• Parties: STATE. v. HINTON.

74 S.E. 104

(158 N.C. 625)

STATE.

v.HINTON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 20, 1912.

1. Criminal Law (§ 1149*)—Bill of Particulars—Denial—Discretion.

The denial of an application by accused for a bill of particulars is not reviewable, unless there is an abuse of the discretion of the trial court.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3039-3043, 3058; Dec. Dig. § 1149.*]

2. Criminal Law (§ 252*) — Bill of Particulars—Abuse of Discretion.

Where a warrant recited that the affiant, chief of police, stated that he was informed and believed that on or about December 4, 1911, in the city of Raleigh, etc., defendant did unlawfully and willfully resist, delay, and obstruct W. and D., two officers of the police for the city in discharging and attempting to discharge a duty of their office, contrary, etc., and it did not appear that defendant required any additional information to enable him to make his defense, the denial of an application for a bill of particulars was not an abuse of discretion.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 526-536; Dec. Dig. § 252.*]

3. Criminal Law (§ 252*)—Warrant—Sufficiency—Language of Statute.

A warrant containing an affidavit of a police officer, and alleging that on a specified day and in a specified place within the court's jurisdiction accused did unlawfully and willfully resist, delay and obstruct two persons designated, who were police officers, and who were discharging and attempting to discharge their duty, etc., was substantially in the language of the statute prohibiting the obstruction of officers, and was therefore sufficient.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 526-536; Dec. Dig. § 252.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Wake County; Bragaw, Judge.

William Hinton, alias "Son" Hinton, was convicted of obstructing an officer, and appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant was tried before the police justice of the city of Raleigh on the follow ing warrant: "J. P. Stell, chief of police of the city of Raleigh, being duly sworn, says that he is informed and believes that on or about the 4th day of December, 1911, in the city of Raleigh, and in Raleigh township, Wake county, William Hinton, alias 'Son' Hinton, did unlawfully and willfully resist, delay, and obstruct J. H. Wyatt and G. C. Dillehay, duly constituted public officers of the police for the city of Raleigh, in discharging and attempting to discharge a duty of their office, contrary to the form of the statute in such ease made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the state. * * * You are hereby commanded to forthwith apprehend the said William Hinton, alias 'Son' Hinton, and bring him before his honor, the police justice of the city of Raleigh, to answer the charge set forth in the above affidavit, and to be further dealt with according to law, " and upon conviction he appealed to the superior court of Wake county. When the case was called for trial in the superior court, the defendant moved for a bill of particulars, which the court denied, in the exercise of its direction, and he excepted. He also moved to quash the warrant, which was denied, and he excepted; also he moved in arrest of judgment, after a verdict of guilty was returned, and to the refusal of this motion excepted. Judgment was rendered upon the verdict, and the defendant appealed.

W. B. Snow, for appellant.

Attorney General Bickett and T. H. Calvert, for the State.

ALLEN, J. [1] The motion for a bill of particulars is addressed to the discretion of...