State v. Pickett
| Citation | 118 N.C. 1231,24 S.E. 350 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1896 |
| Parties | STATE. v. PICKETT. |
Criminal Law—Resisting Officer—Indictment —Variance.
1. An indictment for resisting an officer, which describes him as "a duly-constituted officer of the police for the town of R., " and alleges that defendant unlawfully resisted him "in discharging and attempting to discharge a duty of his office, " is sufficient.
2. Where defendant wishes the offense set out with more particularity, he should move for a bill of particulars.
3. Where an officer unlawfully resisted is described in the indictment as an officer of the police, and the evidence established that he was the chief constable of the town, authorized by ordinance to perform such duties as the one in which he was resisted, the variance is immaterial.
Appeal from Superior court, Richmond county; Robinson, Judge.
William Pickett was convicted of unlawfully resisting an officer, and appeals. Affirmed.
MacRae & Day, for appellant.
The Attorney General and Cameron Morrison, for the State.
The motion to quash the bill of indictment was based on its alleged failure to describe the office which Covington held at the time the offense was charged to have been committed. The language of the indictment is that Covington was "a duly-constituted officer of the police for the town of Rockingham, " and that the defendant unlawfully did resist, delay, and obstruct him in discharging and attempting to discharge the duties of his office. The motion was properly overruled. The office is sufficiently designated when the officer is described as "a duly-constituted public officer of the police for the town of Rockingham." The general duties of a policeman are well known, and in an indictment which charges resistance to such an officer it is not necessary to set out the writ or the process under which the officer was acting when resistance to his authority was made. It is sufficient to charge that the officer was in the "due execution of his office." On the trial the records of the town were introduced to prove that Covington was a police officer. They showed that he had been elected chief marshal of the town. The act of 1887 (charter of the town of Rockingham) was also read in evidence. The charter authorized the town commissioners to elect a town constable. Covington was introduced as a witness for the state, and testified that after his election he had been acting as chief marshal or chief constable of the town for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson, 653.
......Leeper ra; State v. Puckett, 211 N.C. 66, 73, 189 S.E. 183." "If the defendants had desired further information, the statute provides that they can have a bill of particulars. Revisal 1905, § 3244; [N.C.Code, 1939 (Michie), § 4643]. State v. Pickett, 118 N.C. [1231], 1233, 24 S.E. 350." State v. Leeper, supra, 146 N.C. at page 661, 61 S.E. at page 587. In State v. Puckett, supra [211 N.C. 66, 189 S.E. 187], we find: "In State v. Wilson, 121 N.C. 650, 655, 28 S.E. 416, 417, it is said: 'Besides, duplicity is ......
-
State v. Johnson
...... Leeper [supra]; State v. Puckett, 211 N.C. 66, 73, 189 S.E. 183.". . . "If. the defendants had desired further information, the statute. provides that they can have a bill of particulars. Revisal. 1905, § 3244; [N.C.Code, 1939 (Michie), § 4643]. State v. Pickett, 118 N.C. [1231], 1233, 24 S.E. 350." State v. Leeper, supra, 146 N.C. at page 661, 61 S.E. at page 578. . . In. State v. Puckett, supra [211 N.C. 66, 189 S.E. 187],. we find: "In State v. Wilson, 121 N.C. 650, 655, 28 S.E. 416, 417, it is said: 'Besides, duplicity is ......
-
State v. Pelt
...assault) 115 N. C. 758, 20 S. E. 537; Townsend v. Williams, 117 N. C. 337. 23 S. E. 461; Montgomery, J., in State v. Pickett (resisting officer) 118 N. C. 1233, 24 S. E. 350; and in the Gold Brick Case (State v. Howard) 129 N. C. 657, 40 S. E. 71, in which last many authorities elsewhere ar......
-
State v. Van Pelt
...758, 20 S.E. 537; Townsend v. Williams, 117 N.C. 337, 23 S.E. 461; Montgomery, J., in State v. Pickett (resisting officer) 118 N.C. 1233, 24 S.E. 350; and in the Gold Brick Case (State v. Howard) 129 N.C. 657, 40 S.E. 71, in which last many authorities elsewhere are cited, and our ruling re......