State v. Parker

• Decision Date: 02 March 1910
• Citation: 152 N.C. 790,67 S.E. 35
• Parties: STATE v. PARKER.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

67 S.E. 35

152 N.C. 790

STATE

v.PARKER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 2, 1910.

Criminal Law (§ 881^*)—Carrying Concealed Weapons—Sufficiency of Verdict. A verdict finding defendant "guilty of carrying a pistol in his suit case" is not responsiveto an indictment for carrying a concealed weapon, and will not support a conviction thereunder.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 881.^2-*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Pitt County; Guion, Judge.

Modin Parker was convicted under an indictment charging the carrying of a concealed weapon, and he appeals. Reversed.

Julius Brown, for appellant.

Attorney General Bickett and G. L. Jones, for the State.

WALKER, J. The defendant was indicted, in the court below, for the statutory crime of carrying a concealed weapon. The case shows that testimony was introduced by the state tending to prove that the defendant had been seen with a pistol in his hand. The defendant testified in his own behalf that he had not carried the pistol, as charged in the indictment; but on cross-examination he admitted that about two months before the indictment was found he had moved from his former residence to another house in the town where he lived, and while so moving his household effects he put his pistol in his dress suit case and carried it from his old to his new home. This was all the testimony in the case.

The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that, upon all the evidence, they should render a verdict of not guilty. This prayer of the defendant was refused by the court, and he duly excepted; but it is not necessary for us to consider this exception, as we are of the opinion that the verdict rendered by the jury is not sufficient in form or substance to sustain the judgment which was rendered by the court thereon, and by which the defendant was required to pay a fine of $10 and the costs.

The jury, under the instructions of the court and the evidence in the case, returned the following verdict: "Guilty of carrying a pistol in his suit case." The defendant moved to set aside this verdict as uncertain and not responsive to the charge contained in the indictment, and therefore as insufficient to support the judgment of the court This motion was denied, and the defendant excepted. In this ruling against the defendant, we are of the opinion that the court committed an error. The Attorney General, with his accustomed frankness and fairness, and evidently after a thorough investigation and consideration of the questions involved in this exception of the defendant, admitted that the verdict is fatally defective. We quote from his excellent brief, as follows:

"This exception, I think, should have been sustained. The verdict is not responsive to the charge in the bill of indictment. There is no such offense as 'carrying a pistol in a suit case' known to our criminal law. The verdict does not purport to be a special one and cannot be so regarded. As a general verdict, it establishes nothing—neither the guilt nor the innocence of the defendant. The essence of the statutory offense, which is alleged in the indictment to have been committed by the defendant, is an intentional concealment of the deadly weapon, and this vital, and, of course, essential, fact is not established by the verdict, either expressly or by necessary implication. State v. Arring-ton, 7 N. C. 571; State v. Whitaker, 89 N. C. 472; State v. Hudson, 74 N. C. 246; State v. Godwin, 138 N. C. 586 ; State v. McKay, 150 N. C. 816 ."

In Hudson's Case, the defendant was indicted for an assault, and the verdict was "Guilty of shooting, " with reference to which the court said: "The verdict, standing by itself, is, therefore, senseless; certainly it is not responsive to the indictment. The court should never allow such absurd and irresponsive verdicts to be recorded."

In Whitaker's Case, the defendant was indicted for larceny of cotton belonging to one Parker, with a count in the bill for receiving the cotton, knowing it to have been stolen. The verdict was "Guilty of receiving stolen cotton, " and the court held that it was insufficient as a basis for a judgment, using the following language: "The verdict is not sufficiently responsive to the issue, and whenever it is imperfect, informal, insensible, or one that is not responsive...