State v. Mitchell
| Citation | 83 N.C. 674 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1880 |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN MITCHELL. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for an Assault and Battery tried at Spring Term, 1880, of WATAUGA Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.
During the trial, the defendant offered to prove that the offence, if any, was committed beyond the county line of Watauga and in the state of Tennessee, but the court upon objection by the state refused to admit the testimony, unless the defendant would withdraw the plea of “not guilty” and plead in abatement, which he declined to do. And thereupon the court rejected the evidence and the defendant excepted. Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by defendant.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. G. N. Folk, for defendant .
The ruling of His Honor seems to have been founded upon a misconception of the act of 1854-'55--Bat. Rev. ch. 33, § 70. This case does not come within the purview of that statute. The mischief intended to be remedied by it was the difficulty encountered by the courts in effecting the conviction of persons who had violated the criminal law of the state, where the offence was committed near the boundaries of counties, which were undetermined or unknown. And it often happened that where the boundaries were established and known, it was uncertain from the proof whether the offence was committed on the one or the other side of the line; and in consequence of the uncertainty and the doubt arising from it, offenders went “unwhipt of justice.” This was the evil intended to be remedied. It had reference to the violation of the laws of this state committed near the boundaries of counties and not the borders of the state. The very terms and scope of the act support this construction, for it is enacted, “that in the prosecution of all offenders, it shall be deemed and taken as true, that the offence was committed in the county in which by the indictment it is alleged to have taken place, unless the defendant shall deny the same by plea in abatement, the truth whereof shall be duly verified on oath or otherwise, both as to substance and fact, wherein shall be set forth the proper county in which the supposed offence, if any, was committed; whereupon the court may on motion of the state commit the defendant, who may enter into recognizance as in other cases, to answer the offence in the county averred by his plea to be the proper county; and on his prosecution in that county, it shall be deemed conclusively to be the proper...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
...the presumption is in favor of jurisdiction, and the burden is on the defendants. State v. Barrington, 141 N.C. 820, 53 S.E. 663; State v. Mitchell, 83 N.C. 674. motion for change of venue on the ground of local prejudice and to secure a fair trial was also a matter resting in the sound dis......
-
State v. Davis
...presumption is in favor of jurisdiction, and the burden is on the defendants. State v. Barrington, 141 N. C. 820, 53 S. E. 663; State v. Mitchell, 83 N. C. 674. The motion for change of venue on the ground of local prejudice and to secure a fair trial was also a matter resting in the sound ......
-
State v. Overman, 662
...of indictment. State v. Oliver, 186 N.C. 329, 119 S.E. 370. With reference to this statute, Ashe, J., speaking for the Court in State v. Mitchell, 83 N.C. 674, 'The mischief intended to be remedied by it was the difficulty encountered by the Court in effecting the conviction of persons who ......
-
State v. Batdorf
...a criminal offender would escape punishment merely because of uncertainty as to the county in which the crime was committed. State v. Mitchell, 83 N.C. 674 (1880); State v. Overman, Former G.S. 15-134 has been replaced by G.S. 15A-135 which deletes the requirement that a defendant contestin......