State v. Patterson
| Decision Date | 21 October 1942 |
| Docket Number | 290. |
| Citation | 22 S.E.2d 267,222 N.C. 179 |
| Parties | STATE v. PATTERSON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
H P. Whitehurst, of New Bern, for appellant.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and George B. Patton and Hughes J Rhodes, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was convicted at the regular term of the Superior Court for the County of Craven on a charge of the unlawful possession for sale of three gallons of non-tax-paid liquor. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, the defendant demurred to the evidence and moved for judgment as of nonsuit, which was denied.
Upon an inspection of the record, however, it appears that the defendant had a preliminary examination before a justice of the peace upon which probable cause was found, and he was required to make his personal appearance before the County Court of Craven County for trial. It does not appear in the record that he was ever tried in that court or that there was any appeal therefrom to the Superior Court.
The law under which the County Court of Craven County was organized purports to declare all crimes under the degree of felony petty misdemeanors and within the jurisdiction of that court and gives it exclusive original jurisdiction of such offenses. When appeal is made to the Superior Court, that court, acting under its derivative jurisdiction, may try an offender upon the original warrant. Not so, however, in the exercise of its original jurisdiction. C.S.§ 4607. For this court, at least, it is not "otherwise provided by law."
It is possible, of course, that the defendant was regularly tried in the County Court, appeal taken from conviction therein to the Superior Court, and the entire record with regard to the County Court omitted from the transcript of this appeal. We cannot, however, speculate in this regard, but must base our decision upon the record as we find it. Since it appears that the defendant was not tried upon an indictment as required by law, this, standing alone, would deprive the Court of power to impose a sentence and, nothing else appearing, would entitle the defendant to his discharge.
The Attorney General, however, has moved to dismiss the appeal because the record does not disclose that the court which tried accused had jurisdiction. While some paradoxical situations have arisen in the application of the rule, it has, nevertheless, been considered essential that the jurisdiction of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McNeil, COA17-1404
...State v. Hunter , 245 N.C. 607, 96 S.E.2d 840 (1957) ; State v. Banks , 241 N.C. 572, 86 S.E.2d 76 (1955) ; and State v. Patterson , 222 N.C. 179, 22 S.E.2d 267 (1942) ). In the instant case, the district court's Driving While Impaired judgment, if there was one, is not included in the reco......
-
State v. Wilson
... ... in the Superior Court. We cannot so hold ... At the ... trial in the Superior Court, on an appeal from an inferior ... court having exclusive original jurisdiction, the solicitor ... may amend the warrant, State v. Patterson, 222 N.C ... 179, 22 S.E.2d 267; State v. Brown, 225 N.C. 22, 33 ... S.E.2d 121; State v. Grimes, 226 N.C. 523, 39 S.E.2d ... 394, or he may put the defendant on trial under a bill of ... indictment, charging the same offense, returned in the case ... State v. Razook, 179 N.C. 708, 103 S.E ... ...
-
State v. Hundley
...Court, on an appeal from an inferior court having exclusive original jurisdiction, the solicitor may amend the warrant, State v. Patterson, 222 N.C. 179, 22 S.E.2d 267; State v. Brown, 225 N.C. 22, 33 S.E.2d 121; State v. Grimes, 226 N.C. 523, 39 S.E.2d 394, or he may put the defendant on t......
-
State v. Jernigan, 577
...action on its part is void. State v. White, 246 N.C. 587, 99 S.E.2d 772; State v. Thomas, 236 N.C. 454, 73 S.E.2d 283; State v. Patterson, 222 N.C. 179, 22 S.E.2d 267. Where a lack of jurisdiction appears upon the face of the record, as it does here, this Court, even in the absence of a mot......