State v. McGowan
| Citation | 90 S.E.2d 703,243 N.C. 431 |
| Decision Date | 13 January 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 725,725 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Roy McGOWAN. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
William B. Rodman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
P. W. Glidewell, Sr., Reidsville, W. R. Dalton, Jr., Burlington, for defendant, appellant.
The defendant's principal assignment of error is based on his exceptions to the refusal of the court to grant his motions for judgment as of nonsuit. The resistance charge consisted of language and an effort on the part of the defendant to pull away from the officers as they forced him into the police car following the arrest. While the evidence of resistance was conflicting, it was sufficient to take the case to the jury, provided the officers were armed with a warrant sufficient in law to justify them in undertaking the arrest.
A valid warrant of arrest must be based on an examination of the complainant under oath. G.S. § 15-19. It must identify the person charged. Carson v. Doggett, 231 N.C. 629, 58 S.E.2d 609. It must contain directly or by proper reference at least a defective statement of the crime charged. State v. Gupton, 166 N.C. 257, 80 S.E. 989; Alexander v. Lindsey, 230 N.C. 663, 55 S.E.2d 470. It must be directed to a lawful officer or to a class of officers commanding the arrest of the accused. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 323, p. 474. It must be issued by an officer thereto lawfully authorized; that is, the Chief Justice or one of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court, a Judge of the Superior Court, a judge of a criminal court, a presiding officer of an inferior court, a justice of the peace, a mayor of a city or other chief officer of an incorporated town. G.S. § 15-18. The issuance of a warrant of arrest is a judicial act. The service of the warrant is an executive function.
In this case neither the State nor the defendant introduced the warrant in evidence. If nothing else appears and if no objection to the validity of the warrant had been raised in the Superior Court, we would be justified in presuming the officers of the law performed their legal duties and that the warrant was legal and valid. State v. Honeycutt, 237 N.C. 595, 75 S.E.2d 525; State v. Gaston, 236 N.C. 499, 73 S.E.2d 311; State v. Rhodes, 233 N.C. 453, 64 S.E.2d 287; State v. Wood, 175 N.C. 809, 95 S.E. 1050; State v. Bridgers, 87 N.C. 562; Stansbury on Evidence, Sec. 235. In this case, however, something else does appear and the validity of the warrant was challenged in the Superior Court.
The State's witness, Police Sergeant Dupree, testified that he went to headquarters, got the warrant, signed it himself, charging the appellant with disorderly conduct. Another State's witness, J. M. Williams, testified that at the time of the arrest appellant asked Sergeant Dupree who signed the warrant, and Dupree answered: 'Signed by me for disorderly conduct and that you are under arrest.' The following appears in the record: 'The warrant for disorderly conduct under which the defendant was being arrested at the time he was charged to have resisted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sparrow
...right to resist illegal conduct of an officer. State v. Curtis, 2 N.C. 471; State v. Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E.2d 100; State v. McGowan, 243 N.C. 431, 90 S.E.2d 703. Ordinarily, a police officer, absent invitation or permission, may not enter a private home to make an arrest or otherwise......
-
State ex rel. Sahley v. Thompson
...§ 19c; State ex rel. Anderson v. Gile, 119 Mont. 182, 172 P.2d 583, State v. Furmage, 250 N.C. 616, 109 S.E.2d 563; State v. McGowan, 243 N.C. 431, 90 S.E.2d 703; Bearden v. State, 29 Okla.Crim. 398, 233 P. 1100; Beasley v. State, 26 Okla. Crim. 398, 224 P. 376; Fraley v. Ramey, D.C., 239 F......
-
State v. Lombardo, 130A81
......Shermer, 216 N.C. 719, 721, 6 S.E.2d 529, 530 (1940) (discussing whether an affidavit used to support a warrant must be signed or the attesting person examined). See also State v. McGowan, 243 N.C. 431, 433, 90 S.E.2d 703, 705 (1956) (deciding whether a warrant is defective if it is not signed by one authorized to issue it). . Moreover, the Court of Appeals failed to recognize two other factors that must be examined before the presumption of regularity will apply: ......
-
State v. Furmage
...I, Section 8, this constitutional provision was brought to the attention of this Court and discussed in the briefs. In State v. McGowan, 243 N.C. 431, 90 S.E.2d 703, 705, there was no warrant but 'at most an affidavit of a complaining witness upon which a warrant of arrest might be predicat......