State v. Partlow, 271

• Decision Date: 22 November 1967
• Docket Number: No. 271,271
• Citation: State v. Partlow, 272 N.C. 60, 157 S.E.2d 688 (N.C. 1967)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. James PARTLOW.

Page 688

157 S.E.2d 688

272 N.C. 60

STATE of North Carolina v. James PARTLOW.

No. 271.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 22, 1967.

Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Deputy Atty. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard, for the State.

E. Glenn Scott, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellant.

BRANCH, Justice.

Defendant's conviction of accessory before the fact of armed robbery was based upon the following bill of indictment:

'The Jurors for the State upon their oath present, That James Partlow, late of the County of Mecklenburg, on the 3rd day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand and nine hundred and sixty-six, with force and arms, at and in the County aforesaid, unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously, did be and become an accessory before the fact of armed robbery committed by one Willie Moore and one Don Lands, the same being the principal felons, in that he, James Partlow, counseled, incited, induced, procured and encouraged the principal felons to commit the aforesaid felony of armed robbery, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State.'

The proper methods to raise the question of the sufficiency of a bill of indictment are by motion to quash or motion in arrest of judgment. However, if the offense is not sufficiently charged in the indictment, this Court, Ex mero motu, will arrest the judgment. State v. Walker, 249 N.C. 35, 105 S.E.2d 101.

In the case of State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E.2d 917, the Court considered the validity of a bill of indictment, and Parker, J., (now C.J.) stated:

'The authorities are in unison, that an indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, to be good must allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged. The purpose of such constitutional provisions is: (1) such certainty in the statement of the accusation as will identify the offense with which the accused is sought to be charged; (2) to protect the accused from being twice put in jeopardy for the same offense; (3) to enable the accused to prepare for trial, and (4) to enable the court, on conviction or plea of nolo contendere or guilty to pronounce sentence according to the rights of the case. State v. Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594; State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 27 S.E.2d 140; State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Miller, 231 N.C. 419, 57 S.E.2d 392; State v. Gibbs, 234 N.C. 259, 66 S.E.2d 883.'

In considering the validity of this indictment we recognize they by statute (G.S. § 14--5) the facts which formerly had been called 'accessory before the fact' are made a substantive felony and it is not necessary to first convict principals in order to convict an accessory to a crime. State v. Jones, 101 N.C. 719, 8 S.E. 147, 148. However, it will be of assistance to examine the indictments in certain cases of robbery in order to decide whether this indictment is valid.

The defendants were charged with robbery with firearms in the case of State v. Mull, 224 N.C. 574, 31 S.E.2d 764. The bill of indictment charged the property taken to be 'two dollars in money.' The court charged, 'I instruct you that * * * gas tickets or coupons are recognized as personal property, and that the taking of them is a breach of the statute * * *.' Defendants contended that this instruction erroneously enlarged upon and departed from the bill of indictment. Holding that there was no error, this Court stated:

'Initially, it should be observed that the bill charges robbery from the person by the use or threatened use of firearms of two dollars in money the property of Cleveland Whisenant. The gist of the offense, as thus alleged, is the accomplishment of the robbery by the use or threatened use of firearms. * * * Force or intimidation occasioned by the use or threatened use of firearms, is the main element of the offense. * * * 'In such case it is not necessary or material to describe accurately or prove the particular identify or value of the property, Further than to show it was the property of the person assaulted or in his care, and had a value. " (Emphasis added) In the case of State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 144 S.E.2d 14, the Court considered the appellant's contention that the indictment for common law robbery was fatally defective in that it did not describe the property taken. Holding the indictment defective, the Court said:

'We have said in a number of cases that in an indictment for robbery the kind and value of the property taken is not material--the gist of the offense is not the taking, but a taking by force or putting in fear. State v. Sawyer, 224 N.C. 61, 29 S.E.2d 34; State v. Brown, 113 N.C. 645, 18 S.E. 51; State v. Burke, 73 N.C. 83. See also State v. Mull, 224 N.C. 574, 31 S.E.2d 764. However, in these cases the objection was not that there was no description but that the description was insufficient; the indictments described the property in general terms, such as 'money'.

'In our opinion an indictment for robbery must contain a description of the property sufficient, at least, to show that such property is the subject or robbery. To constitute the offense of robbery the property taken must be such as is the subject of larceny. State v. Trexler, 4 N.C. 188; 46 Am.Jur., Robbery, See. 8, p. 142.'

Former jeopardy, being based on the fundamental legal principal that a person cannot be tried twice for the same offense, is a good plea. State v. Mansfield, 207 N.C. 233, 176 S.E. 761; N.C.Const., Art. I, Sec. 17. Further, a plea of former jeopardy must be grounded on the Same offense both in law and fact. State v. Davis, 223 N.C. 54, 25 S.E.2d 164.

The bill of indictment in the instant case charges the defendant with accessory before the fact of armed robbery in the general words of the statute, without any factual averments as to the identify of the victim, the property taken, or as to the manner or method in which defendant 'counseled, incited, induced, procured and encouraged the principal felons.' It is apparent that if the principal felons had committed more than one armed robbery in Mecklenburg County on 3 December 1966, defendant would be unable upon a subsequent prosecution to show that the latter prosecution was for the same offense as charged in the instant bill of indictment.

In the case of State v. Banks, 247 N.C. 745, 102 S.E.2d 245, the Court stated:

"* * * while it is a general rule prevailing in this State that an indictment...