State v. Whitaker

• Citation: 89 N.C. 472
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 31 October 1883
• Parties: STATE v. LEANDER WHITAKER.

89 N.C. 472

STATE

v.LEANDER WHITAKER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October Term, 1883.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

INDICTMENT for larceny tried at Spring Term, 1883, of HALIFAX Superior Court, before Philips, J.

The indictment contained two counts--one for stealing a quantity of cotton, the property of James H. Parker, and the other for feloniously receiving the cotton, knowing it to have been stolen. Upon the trial in the inferior court of Halifax, before Thos. N. Hill and associate justices, in which the prosecution commenced, the defendant pleaded “not guilty,” and the jury returned for their verdict that the defendant “is guilty of receiving stolen cotton.” On motion of the defendant, judgment was arrested, and the state appealed to the superior court, where the judgment of the inferior court was affirmed, and the state appealed to this court.

Attorney-General, for the State .

Mr. J. E. O'Hara, for the defendant .

ASHE, J.

The record does not disclose upon what ground the judgment was arrested, but we presume it was because it was considered that the verdict of the jury was insensible, or not responsive to the issue presented for their consideration.

The charge was that the defendant received the cotton of one James H. Parker, knowing it to have been stolen, and the jury find “he is guilty of receiving stolen cotton.” The finding is very informal and uncertain, and not responsive to the indictment. What cotton do they find was received? To whom did it belong? Did the defendant, at the time of receiving it, know that it had been stolen? According to the verdict, the cotton received may have belonged to any other person than him who is alleged in the indictment to be the owner; or, the defendant may have received the cotton without any knowledge, at the time of receiving it, that it had been stolen. To constitute the offence charged in the second count of the indictment, the goods must be shown to be the property of the person alleged to be the owner. They must have been stolen before their receiption by the defendant, and he must have a knowledge of that fact at the time of receiving. But this verdict, in its general terms, cannot be construed to have found any of these essential facts, save that of receiving some stolen cotton. It is not sufficiently responsive to the issue; and whenever a verdict is imperfect, informal, insensible, or one that is not responsive to the indictment, the jury may be directed to reconsider it with proper instructions as to the form in which it should be rendered. 1 Arch. Cr. Prac. & Pl., 176, note 4; State v. Arrington, 3 Mur., 571.

But if such a verdict is received by the court and recorded, it would be error to pronounce judgment upon it. The most regular course would be to set aside the verdict and order a ...