State v. Revels
| Decision Date | 30 June 1853 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. RAIFORD REVELS. |
Where the defendant had been indicted for stealing a sheep, charged to be the property of P. P., and acquitted at the trial on the ground that the owner of the property was unknown; and he was afterwards indicted for the same offence, the sheep being charged to be the property of some one to the jurors unknown:-- Held that the plea of former acquittal was no bar to a conviction upon the latter indictment.
The law raises no presumption, nor does the Court judicially know, that the Court House of a county is five miles or more from the boundaries of such county.
And where the defendant, on his arrest, said that he desired to be carried to the Court House, which was within five miles from the place, and when so carried there, did not object that it was not the proper Court House:-- Held that it was error in the Judge below to leave these circumstances to the jury upon the question of venue. He should have instructed them that there was no evidence that the offence was committed in the county as charged.
(The cases of State v. Birmingham, 44 N.C. 120, and Cobb v. Fogleman, 1 Ire. 440, cited and approved.)
THE defendant was indicted and tried before his Honor Judge DICK, at Robeson, at Spring Term, 1853, for stealing a sheep. Pleas, former acquittal, not guilty.
On the trial it appeared that the defendant had before been indicted for stealing a sheep, charged to be the property of one Peter Prevatt, and on the trial had been acquitted, on the ground that the sheep was not the property of Peter Prevatt. The present indictment charged that the sheep was the property of some one to the jurors unknown. It was admitted that the transaction was the same as the subject of the previous trial, except as to the alleged owner of the property. There was no direct proof that the offence was committed in the county of Robeson; but it was proved to have been committed, if at all, within five miles of Lumberton, and that, when arrested, the defendant desired to be carried to the Court House for examination; and when brought to Lumberton, did not object that that was not the proper Court House. The defendant's counsel, among other things, insisted upon the plea of former acquittal, and that there was no proof that the offence was committed in the county of Robeson, and prayed his Honor so to instruct the jury.
His Honor held that the plea of former acquittal would not avail the defendant, and charged the jury that the whole proof against the defendant was circumstantial, and if upon consideration of all the circumstances, they should be satisfied that he stole the sheep, and stole it within the county of Robeson, they might convict him; but if those circumstances left on their minds doubts, either as to the fact of stealing, or as to the taking in the county of Robeson, they ought to acquit. There was a verdict of guilty, and a rule for a new trial having been discharged, and judgment rendered on the verdict, the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court.
D. Reid and Troy, for the defendant .
Attorney General, for the State .
The first objection, that the defendant had been formerly acquitted upon an indictment for the same offence, was properly overruled, as we decided at last Term in the case of the State v. Birmingham, 44 N.C. 120. The report of that case had not been published at the time of the trial in this, and the defendant's counsel was not probably then aware of its existence.
The second point made for the defendant ought to have been sustained. The case of Cobb v. Fogleman, 1 Ire. 440, is directly in his favor; and we both approve of its principle and feel bound by its authority. In that case, a question...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hicks
...v. Hooker, 145 N.C. 581, 59 S.E. 866; State v. Hankins, 136 N.C. 621, 48 S.E. 593; State v. Nash, 86 N.C. 650, 41 Am.Rep. 472; State v. Revels, 44 N.C. 200; State v. Birmingham, 44 N.C. 120; State v. Jesse, 20 N.C. 95, or whether the same evidence would support a conviction in each case. St......
-
State v. Hooker
...proof of another and distinct offense. This has been often held. State v. Jesse, 20 N. C. 98; State v. Birmingham, 44 N. C. 120; State v. Revels, 44 N. C. 200; State v. Nash, 86 N. C. 650, 41 Am. Rep. 472. The evidence in the trial for larceny would not have sup ported a verdict on this cha......
-
State v. Drakeford
...that it was not material"--citing very many cases which sustain this proposition, among them State v. Birmingham, 44 N.C. 120; State v. Revels, 44 N.C. 200; State Sherrill, 82 N.C. 694. "Where a verdict of acquittal is directed at the request of defendant upon the ground that the indictment......
-
United States v. Aurandt.
...would not have been admissible to secure a conviction under the first. 12 Cyc. 266; 17 A. & E. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) 598; State v. Revels, 44 N. C. 200. While holding that there is no constitutional barrier against further prosecution, we are constrained upon the other grounds discussed to r......