State v. Sossamon, 508
| Decision Date | 01 May 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 508,508 |
| Citation | 259 N.C. 374,130 S.E.2d 638 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. D. H. SOSSAMON, Jr. |
T. O. Stennett and Harry E. Faggart, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellant.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and Charles D. Barham, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Whether defendant's motion in arrest of judgment should have been allowed depends upon whether the amended warrant is fatally defective. This must be determined by application of the well settled legal principles stated below.
'A valid warrant or indictment is an essential of jurisdiction.' State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E.2d 166; State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 660, 111 S.E.2d 901. A warrant or indictment must charge all the essential elements of the alleged criminal offense. State v. Morgan, supra. The reasons underlying this requirement are summarized by Parker, J., in State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E.2d 917. Nothing in G.S. § 15-153 or in G.S. § 15-155 dispenses with the requirement that the essential elements of the offense must be charged. State v. Gibbs, 234 N.C. 259, 261, 66 S.E.2d 883, and cases cited; State v. Nugent (Strickland), 243 N.C. 100, 101, 89 S.E.2d 781; State v. Cox, 244 N.C. 57, 60, 92 S.E.2d 413.
A warrant or indictment following substantially the language of the statute is sufficient if and when it thereby charges the essentials of the offense 'in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner.' G.S. § 15-153; State v. Eason, 242 N.C. 59, 86 S.E.2d 774. If the statutory words fail to do this, they 'must be supplemented by other allegations which so plainly, intelligibly and explicitly set forth every essential element of the offense as to leave no doubt in the mind of the accused and the court as to the offense intended to be charged.' State v. Cox, supra, and cases cited.
The reference in the amended warrant to G.S. § 20-28 discloses an intent to charge a violation of the offense defined therein. However, '(m)erely charging in general terms a breach of the statute and referring to it in the indictment is not sufficient.' State v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 702, 132 S.E. 795, and cases cited.
G.S. § 20-28(a), in pertinent part, provides:
'Any person whose operator's or chauffeur's license has been suspended or revoked other than permanently, as provided in this chapter, who shall drive any motor vehicle upon the highways of the State while such license is suspended or revoked shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and his license shall be suspended or revoked, as the case may be, for an additional period of one year for the first offense, two years for the second offense, and permanently for a third or subsequent offense; * * *.' (Our italics)
The amended warrant charges that defendant on March 26, 1961, operated a motor vehicle upon the public highways 'after his license had been revoked or suspended' but does not charge he did so 'while such license (was) suspended or revoked.' Nor does it allege when or for what period defendant's license had been revoked or suspended. Hence the amended warrant does not allege an essential element, indeed the gist, of the offense defined in G.S. § 20-28(a). To constitute a violation of G.S. § 20-28(a), such operation must occur 'while such license is suspended or revoked,' that is, during the period of suspension or revocation.
It is noted that the amended warrant refers to an alleged prior conviction of defendant on February 29,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sparrow
...arrest of judgment on the ground the warrant is fatally defective would not bar further prosecution on a valid warrant. State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 130 S.E.2d 638. While I would base decision on the insufficiency of the warrant, the following should be The only reference to the verdict......
-
U.S. v. Hooker
...Ayre v. State, 291 Md. 155, 433 A.2d 1150, 1158 (1981); State v. Cook, 272 N.C. 728, 158 S.E.2d 820, 822 (1968); State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 130 S.E.2d 638, 639 (1963); Wilder v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 145, 225 S.E.2d 411, 413 (1976); contra, State v. Crenshaw, 274 S.C. 475, 266 S.E.2d ......
-
State Carolina v. Billinger
...” to cure the failure to charge “the essentials of the offense” in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner. State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 376, 130 S.E.2d 638, 639 (1963) (quoting State v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 702, 132 S.E. 795, 795 (1926)). Accordingly, the State's failure to alle......
-
State v. Penley
...rule, when it charges the offense in the language of the statute. State v. Hord, 264 N.C. 149, 141 S.E.2d 241 (1965); State v. Sossamon, 259 N.C. 374, 130 S.E.2d 638 (1963); State v. Wells, 259 N.C. 173, 130 S.E.2d 299 In State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E.2d 406 (1966), a bill of indic......