State v. Wise
| Decision Date | 30 June 1872 |
| Citation | 67 N.C. 281 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. CHANEY WISE. |
Where judgment cannot be pronounced against a prisoner, on account of the ambiguity in an indictment, in omitting to aver under what statute it was framed, there being two in reference to the same subject, such omission cannot be supplied by a plea to the further prosecution of the case, filed by the prisoner's counsel, admitting the time when the offence was committed.
No such effect can be allowed to the action of counsel, A record cannot be aided by matter in pais. Sufficient matter must appear on the record to enable the Court to proceed to judgment.
The prisoner was convicted of arson at Fall Term, 1871, of CRAVEN Superior Court. Judgment of death was pronounced. Prisoner appealed to the Supreme Court. At January Term, 1872, the judgment was arrested and the case remanded. At Spring Term, 1872, the case being called, the Solicitor moved for judgment according to the Act of 1869. The prisoner moved for his discharge, and filed the following plea, to wit: The said Chaney Wise saith that the State ought not further to prosecute the indictment against him, and ought not to hear judgment, because heretofore, at Fall Term, 1871, of this Court, he was indicted for the crime of arson, in an indictment ment as follows: (The plea here sets out a copy of the indictment, which is the same as heretofore given in the case reported 66 N. C. R. 120, and proceeds); that in support of said charge, one Mason was examined as a witness, and testified that the prisoner did set fire to and burn his dwelling house on the 1st day of August, 1871; that he was convicted on said indictment and judgment of death pronounced, from which he appealed to the Supreme Court. At said Court judgment was arrested. This he is ready to verify. Wherupon he prays judgment that he be dismissed.
J. H. HAUGHTON, Atto., &c.
The facts stated in the plea were admitted to be true by the Solicitor.
Whereupon the Court ordered the prisoner to be discharged.
The State appealed.
Attorney General, Battle & Sons, Dupre, for the State .
Haughton, Smith & Strong, for the defendant .
When this case was before us, 66 N. C. 120, the motion for judgment of death was disallowed, on the ground that it could not be seen by the record, that the prisoner had been charged and convicted under the Act of 1871. On the argument of the present motion, it was conceded by the Attorney General, that the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Watkins
...that the judgment should have been arrested, it will, ex mero motu, direct it to be done. State v. Wilson, Phil. (N. C.) 237; State v. Wise, 67 N. C. 281; State v. Bob-bitt, 70 N. C. 81; Thornton v. Brady, 100 N. C. 38, 5 S. E. Rep. 910; Morrison v. Watson, 95 N. C. 479. It is sufficient an......
-
State v. Watkins
...seems that the judgment should have been arrested, it will, ex mero motu, direct it to be done. State v. Wilson, Phil. (N. C.) 237; State v. Wise, 67 N.C. 281; State v. 70 N.C. 81; Thornton v. Brady, 100 N.C. 38, 5 S.E. Rep. 910; Morrison v. Watson, 95 N.C. 479. It is sufficient and proper,......
-
State v. Long
...in its operation, and under the Constitution cannot apply to antecedent acts. State v. Nutt, Phil. 20; State v. Wise, 66 N. C. 120, and 67 N. C. 281. The motion here made in arrest of judgment is allowed. Error. PER CURIAM. Judgment ...