State v. Thornton
| Decision Date | 30 June 1852 |
| Citation | 35 N.C. 256,13 Ired. 256 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ALVIN G. THORNTON. |
A nolle prosequi in criminal proceedings does not amount to an acquittal of the defendant, but he may again be prosecuted for the same offence, or fresh process may be issued to try him on the same indictment, at the discretion of the prosecuting officer. The defendant, however, when a nolle prosequi is entered, is not required to enter into recognizance for his appearance at any other time.
A capias, after a nolle prosequi, does not issue as a matter of course, at the will of the prosecuting officer, but upon permission of the Court first had, and the Court will always see, that its process is not abused, to the oppression of the citizen.
The case of State v. Thompson, 3 Hawks 614, cited and approved.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Johnston County, at the Spring Term, 1852, his Honor Judge DICK presiding.
The facts of this case will be found in the opinion of the Court.
Attorney General, for the State .
W. H. Haywood, for the defendant .
The motion, made in the Court below, and upon which the case is brought here, is founded upon a misconception of the principle and effect of a Nol. Pros. entered by the prosecuting officer on an Indictment. A Bill of Indictment was found against the defendant, and a nolle prosequi was entered by the Attorney General, and an alias capias was issued against the defendant, under which he entered into a recognizance to appear at the succeeding Term. No other bill upon the same charge was sent to the Grand Jury, and the Attorney General announced his determination to send no other, but to try the defendant upon the bill then found. This was opposed on the part of the defendant, who moved to be discharged, unless the Attorney General proposed to send another bill against him for the matter charged in the first bill, or for some other alleged crime. The motion was overruled. The objection is founded upon the idea, that, although the Nol. Pros. did not discharge the defendant from answering to the charge upon another indictment, it was an effectual discharge from any liability under the bill then found. A Nol. Pros. in criminal proceedings, is nothing but a declaration, on the part of the prosecuting officer, that he will not at that time prosecute the suit farther. Its effect is to put the defendant without day--that is, he is discharged and permitted to leave the Court, without...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Clayton
...all the evidence that the defendant should be discharged as having been placed in jeopardy in the Recorder's Court, said: 'In S[tate]. v. Thornton, 35 N.C. 256 (257-258): 'A nolle prosequi in criminal proceedings, is nothing but a declaration, on the part of the prosecuting officer, that he......
-
Klopfer v. State of North Carolina, 100
...exercise control over the procedure to prevent oppression of defendants. See State v. Smith, 129 N.C. 546, 40 S.E. 1 (1901); State v. Thornton, 35 N.C. 256 (1852). But, in the present case, neither the court below nor the solicitor offers any reason why the case of petitioner should have be......
-
State v. Lonon
...expressly hold that a dismissal of a criminal charge may be set aside and the defendant prosecuted on the same indictment. [State v. Thornton, 35 N.C. 256; State v. Thompson, 10 N.C. 613.] In State Nutting, 39 Me. 359, a number of counts in an indictment were dismissed during the trial of t......
-
State v. Lonon, 32323.
...expressly hold that a dismissal of a criminal charge may be set aside and the defendant prosecuted on the same indictment. [State v. Thornton, 35 N.C. 256; State v. Thompson, 10 N.C. 613.] In State v. Nutting, 39 Me. 359, a number of counts in an indictment were dismissed during the trial o......