State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 20 May 1936 |
| Docket Number | 650. |
| Citation | 185 S.E. 661,210 N.C. 159 |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
J.S Williams was convicted of possessing, manufacturing, having under his control, selling, prescribing, administering, or dispensing a narcotic drug, and he appeals.
Reversed.
Prior to the reading of and the plea to the bill of indictment, and prior to the impaneling of the jury, the defendant moved to quash the bill of indictment, and, upon the motion being denied, reserved exception.
The bill of indictment is as follows: "The Jurors for the State, upon their oath, present: That J.S. Williams, late of the County of Guilford, on the 16th day of June, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and thirty-five, with force and arms, at and in the county aforesaid, unlawfully wilfully and feloniously did possess, manufacture, have under his control, sell, prescribe, administer, or dispense a narcotic drug, to-wit: Cannabis, against the form of the statute in such case made and provided, against the peace and dignity of the State."
The verdict rendered was: "Guilty as alleged in the bill of indictment."
From judgment of imprisonment the defendant appealed, assigning errors.
Indictment or information must not charge party disjunctively or alternatively in such manner as to leave accusation against him uncertain.
Whenever word "or" in indictment would leave averment uncertain as to which of two or more things is meant, word "and" may be employed instead, if it makes called-for sense.
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Pless, Judge.
Frazier & Frazier, of Greensboro, and Yarborough & Yarborough, of Louisburg, for appellant.
A.A.F Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan and T.W. Bruton Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The bill of indictment was drawn to charge a violation of chapter 477 of the Public Laws of 1935, the two first sections of which are as follows:
We are of the opinion, and so hold, that his honor erred in denying the motion of the defendant to quash the bill of indictment upon the ground that it charged in one count several separate and distinct offenses in the disjunctive and was thereby rendered void for uncertainty. It cannot be determined from a reading of the bill whether it was meant to charge the defendant with possessing cannabis, or with manufacturing cannabis, or with having under his control cannabis, or with selling cannabis, or with prescribing cannabis, or with administering cannabis, or with dispensing cannabis. If it should be said that the purpose was to charge all of the offenses just enumerated, the answer is that the bill does not make such a blanket charge; the conjunction "and," instead of the disjunctive "or," was required to make such a charge. The expediency for such holding is clearly demonstrated by the result of the trial...
To continue reading
Request your trial