State v. Scott, 434
| Citation | 84 S.E.2d 654,241 N.C. 178 |
| Decision Date | 24 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 434,434 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Alford Lindor SCOTT. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Ralph Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Pittman & Staton and Edwin B. Hatch, Jr., Sanford, for defendant appellant.
The bill of indictment fails to meet the test set forth in State v. Sumner, 232 N.C. 386, 61 S.E.2d 84, and other decisions of like import. The allegations in a bill of indictment must particularize the crime charged and be sufficiently explicit to protect the defendant against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. This the bill of indictment appearing in this record fails to do. State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E.2d 663.
While a motion to quash is the most appropriate method of raising the question whether the bill of indictment charges the commission of any criminal offense, motion in arrest of judgment may be used to the same end. State v. Cochran, supra.
State v. Raynor, 235 N.C. 184, 69 S.E.2d 155, and State v. Thorne, 238 N.C. 392, 78 S.E.2d 140, are directly in point. What is said in the opinions in those cases is controlling here.
The defendant is entitled to his discharge. To that end the judgment entered in the court below is arrested.
Reversed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hammonds
...warrant or bill of indictment may withstand such a motion when an indispensable allegation of the offense charged is omitted. State v. Scott, N.C., 84 S.E.2d 654; State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 266, 37 S.E.2d 678; State v. Vanderlip, 225 N.C. 610, 3......
-
State v. Stokes, 248
...N.C. 57, 92 S.E.2d 413; State v. Strickland, 243 N.C. 100, 89 S.E.2d 781; State v. Burton, 243 N.C. 277, 90 S.E.2d 390; State v. Scott, 241 N.C. 178, 84 S.E.2d 654. Except where a pardon is pleaded before sentence, or except as otherwise provided by statute, a motion in arrest of judgment c......
-
State v. Bissette
...92 S.E.2d 413; State v. Nugent (Strickland), 243 N.C. 100, 89 S.E.2d 781; State v. Burton, 243 N.C. 277, 90 S.E.2d 390; State v. Scott, 241 N.C. 178, 84 S.E.2d 654. Mere conclusions of the pleader are not sufficient. A plain and concise statement of facts is required by statute in both civi......
-
State v. Russell
...motion when an indispensable allegation of the charge is omitted. State v. McBane, 276 N.C. 60, 170 S.E.2d 913 (1969); State v. Scott, 241 N.C. 178, 84 S.E.2d 654 (1954). In the present case, is the reference in the second count to the first count, wherein the check was fully described, suf......