State v. Mccollum, (No. 466.)
| Docket Nº | (No. 466.) |
| Citation | 107 S.E. 309 |
| Case Date | May 18, 1921 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
107 S.E. 309
STATE
v.
McCOLLUM.
(No. 466.)
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 18, 1921.
Appeal from Superior Court, Montgomery County; Bryson, Judge.
E. B. McCollum was convicted of violating the prohibitory law, and he appeals. Reversed.
The indictment is for violation of prohibition laws of state, and contains five counts, and the case on appeal states that defendant was acquitted on all of the counts except the count which charged receipt of more than a quart within 15 days, this being the fourth count in the bill. There was judgment that defendant be imprisoned for nine months, and assigned to work on the roads of Rowan county.
R. T. Poole, of Troy, for appellant.
Attorney General James S. Manning and Assistant Attorney General Frank Nash, for the State.
HOKE, J. [1-3] The record shows that the count on which the jury rendered a verdict does not contain the name of the defendant or any name whatever. It is very generally held, in an indictment consisting of several counts, that each count should be complete in itself, and that in order to this some name should be given the defendant. If it is the wrong name, or defectively stated, the question should ordinarily be raised by plea in abatement or motion to quash, but where no name at all appears in the bill or in the only count on which a conviction is had, it is held in this jurisdiction that such a charge is fatally defective, and the judgment must be arrested. State v. Anderson Phelps, 65 N. C. 450. And this course should be taken though the question is presented for the first time in the Supreme Court on appeal. State v. Roanoke R. R., 109 N. C. 860, 13 S. E. 719; State v. Caldwell, 112 N. C. 854, 16
[107 S.E. 310]S. E. 1010; State v. Goings, 98 N. C. 766, 4 S. E. 121.
This will be certified that the judgment on the present conviction be arrested.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammonds, No. 581
...and is, therefore, fatally defective. In support of her position she cites State v. Phelps, 65 N.C. 450; State v. McCollum, 181 N.C. 584, 107 S.E. 309; and State v. Camel, 230 N.C. 426, 53 S.E.2d There appears to be some conflict in the decisions of this Court on the question raised by the ......
-
State v. Williams, No. 70A81
...v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E.2d 133 (1954); State v. Finch, 218 N.C. 511, 11 S.E.2d 547 (1940); State v. McCollum, 181 N.C. 584, 107 S.E. 309 (1921); State v. Phelps, 65 N.C. 450 (1871). This failure has no effect on the murder conviction, however, because when the State prosecutes a d......
-
State v. Russell, No. 48
...defective, in Page 297 that the names of the defendants are not repeated in charging the Scienter. State v. McCollum, 181 N.C. 584, 107 S.E. 309; State v. May, 132 N.C. 1020, 43 S.E. 819; State v. Phelps, 65 N.C. 450. This is a refinement which the act of 1811, now C.S. 4623 (now G.S. 15--1......
-
State v. Whitley, Nos. 365, 366, 370.
...is fatally defective, in that the names of the defendants are not repeated in charging the scienter. State v. McCollum, 181 N. C. 584, 107 S. E. 309; State v. May, 132 N. C. 1020, 43 S. E. 819; State v. Phelps, 65 N. C. 450. This is a refinement which the act of 1811, now C. S. § 4623, soug......
-
State v. Hammonds, No. 581
...and is, therefore, fatally defective. In support of her position she cites State v. Phelps, 65 N.C. 450; State v. McCollum, 181 N.C. 584, 107 S.E. 309; and State v. Camel, 230 N.C. 426, 53 S.E.2d There appears to be some conflict in the decisions of this Court on the question raised by the ......
-
State v. Williams, No. 70A81
...v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E.2d 133 (1954); State v. Finch, 218 N.C. 511, 11 S.E.2d 547 (1940); State v. McCollum, 181 N.C. 584, 107 S.E. 309 (1921); State v. Phelps, 65 N.C. 450 (1871). This failure has no effect on the murder conviction, however, because when the State prosecutes a d......
-
State v. Russell, No. 48
...defective, in Page 297 that the names of the defendants are not repeated in charging the Scienter. State v. McCollum, 181 N.C. 584, 107 S.E. 309; State v. May, 132 N.C. 1020, 43 S.E. 819; State v. Phelps, 65 N.C. 450. This is a refinement which the act of 1811, now C.S. 4623 (now G.S. 15--1......
-
State v. Whitley, Nos. 365, 366, 370.
...is fatally defective, in that the names of the defendants are not repeated in charging the scienter. State v. McCollum, 181 N. C. 584, 107 S. E. 309; State v. May, 132 N. C. 1020, 43 S. E. 819; State v. Phelps, 65 N. C. 450. This is a refinement which the act of 1811, now C. S. § 4623, soug......