State v. Walters, 726.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 726.,726. |
| Citation | 180 S.E. 664,208 N. C. 391 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE . v. WALTERS. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Orange County; Harris, Judge.
W. B. Walters, Jr., was convicted of a misdemeanor in the Superior Court after appeal from judgment of conviction in the Mayor's Court, and he appeals.
Error.
This is a criminal action in which the defendant is charged with the commission of a misdemeanor, to wit, the violation of an ordinance of the town of Hillsboro, N. C. C. S. § 4174.
The action was begun by a criminal warrant issued by the mayor of the town of Hillsboro, and was tried in the mayor's court of said town, on defendant's plea of not guilty. The defendant was convicted, and appealed from the judgment at said trial to the superior court of Orange county.
After the action was docketed in the superior court of Orange county, and while it was pending in said court for trial, de novo, the attorney for the town of Hillsboro and the attorney for the defendant submitted tothe judge of said court an agreed statement of facts, and agreed that said judge should consider said facts agreed, and render judgment thereon, expressly waiving a trial by jury.
The judge was of opinion that on the facts agreed the defendant is guilty, and thereupon adjudged that defendant pay a fine of $1 and the costs of the action.
The defendant excepted to the judgment and appealed to the Supreme Court.
Gilbert B. Swindell and Jones & Brass-field, all of Raleigh, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and John W. Aiken, Ass't Atty. Gen., for the State.
In State v. Straughn, 197 N. C. 691, 150 S. E. 330, it is said:
A judgment against a defendant in a criminal action who has entered a plea of not guilty of the crime with which he is charged, and who has not withdrawn said plea, is erroneous, when there was no verdict, either general or special, to support the judgment. State v. Beasley, 196 N. C. 797, 147 S. E. 301.
It is ordered that this action be remanded to the superior court of Orange county...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bridges
... ... 53, 182 S.E. 716; State ... v. Crump, 209 N.C. 52, 182 S.E. 716; State v ... Camby, 209 N.C. 50, 182 S.E. 715; State v ... Walters, 208 N.C. 391, 180 S.E. 664; State v ... Straughn, 197 N.C. 691, 150 S.E. 330; State v ... Crawford, 197 N.C. 513, 149 S.E. 729; State v ... ...
-
State v. Lueders
... ... consequence, that no judgment could be pronounced upon such a ... verdict." See State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 ... S.E. 604; State v. Walters, 208 N.C. 391, 180 S.E ... 664; State v. Stewart, 89 N.C. 563 ... Secondly, ... the verdict of the jury was rendered on an ... ...
-
State v. McCotter
...consequence, that no judgment could be pronounced upon such a verdict.' See State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604; State v. Walters, 208 N.C. 391, 180 S.E. 664; State v. Stewart, 89 N.C. An analysis of the cases to which the court refers reveals that the Stewart and Walters cases involv......
-
Jarrett v. Winston Mut. Life Ins. Co
... ... Carswell, 204 N. C. 571, 169 S. E. 160. These are all conceded or taken for granted. State v. Edwards, 205 N. C. 661, 172 S. E. 399; State v. Lea, 203 N. C. 316, 166 S. E. 292; State v ... ...