State v. Lunsford
| Decision Date | 19 May 1909 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. LUNSFORD. |
The indictment or warrant under which one is prosecuted must set forth the accusation with sufficient certainty to enable the court to determine what offense has been committed, and to know what punishment may be imposed in case of a conviction.
An affidavit and warrant, charging an unlawful sale of liquor in a city before prohibition became effective therein, must allege a sale without a license.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 218; Dec. Dig. § 198.*]
A prosecution for the violation of a municipal ordinance cannot be sustained, where the warrant and accompanying affidavit do not set forth the ordinance nor describe it, nor refer to it in any way sufficient to identify it.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Municipal Corporations, Cent. Dig. §§ 1406-1409; Dec. Dig. § 639.*]
1. Intoxicating Liquors (§ 198*)—Criminal Prosecutions—Affidavit and Warrant-Sufficiency.
Where the warrant and accompanying affidavit charging an unlawful sale of liquor do not show whether the sale was in violation of the state law or a municipal ordinance, no valid judgment can be pronounced.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Intoxicating Liquors, Cent. Dig. § 218; Dec. Dig. § 198.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Ward, Judge.
Jim Lunsford was convicted of selling liquor contrary to law, and he appeals. Judgment arrested.
Indictment for selling whisky in the city of Asheville contrary to law, tried on appeal from police court of the city of Asheville. The procedure under which conviction was had is shown in the affidavit and warrant appearing in the record as follows:
Under this procedure, the defendant was tried, convicted and sentenced by the police justice to pay a fine of $100. Having appealed to the superior court, defendant was there again convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for eighteen months, and assigned to work the public roads during his term. From this judgment, defendant, having duly excepted, appealed to this court.
W. P. Brown, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
While the statutes in this state are full and sufficient to cure all formal defects in the procedure incident to a criminal prosecution, the requirement remains that in any and every such prosecution, whether by indictment or warrant, either alone or in connection with the accompanying...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Albarty
...Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594; State v. Carlson, 171 N.C. 818, 89 S.E. 30; State v. Greene, 151 N.C. 729, 66 S.E. 564; State v. Lunsford, 150 N.C. 862, 64 S.E. 765; State v. Hill, 79 N.C. The language of the criminal complaint underlying the original warrant discloses that it was intende......
-
State v. Wiggs, 499
...the following: Greensboro v. Shields, 78 N.C. 417; Hendersonville v. McMinn, 82 N.C. 532; State v. Edens, 85 N.C. 522; State v. Lunsford, 150 N.C. 862, 64 S.E. 765. Here, the 'Disorderly Conduct' warrant on which defendant was tried contains no allegation, specific or general, to the effect......
-
State v. Pallet
...Shields, 78 N.C. 417 (1878); Hendersonville v. McMinn, 82 N.C. 532 (1880); State v. Edens, 85 N.C. 522, 526 (1881). In State v. Lunsford, 150 N.C. 862, 64 S.E. 765 (1909), the warrant charged that defendant 'did unlawfully and willfully sell spirituous, vinous and malt liquors to one Zeb. D......
-
State v. Nugent
...sentence according to law. State v. Jenkins, 238 N.C. 396, 77 S.E.2d 796; State v. Green, 151 N.C. 729, 66 S.E. 564; State v. Lunsford, 150 N.C. 862, 64 S.E. 765; 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 90. This right of the accused is a substantial right that may not be ignored, and not......