In Re Jones

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

In Re Jones

181 S.E.2d 162, 11 N.C. App. 437, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1553

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 26, 1971

Docket7119DC277

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 181 S.E.2d 162 (In Re Jones) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Jones, 181 S.E.2d 162, 11 N.C. App. 437, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1553 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

GRAHAM, Judge.

Appellant contends the court committed error in refusing motion made on his behalf to quash the petition upon which the hearing was conducted and in allowing the petition to be amended. The amendment was made on the day of the hearing but before the hearing commenced.

Juvenile proceedings in this State are not criminal prosecutions and a finding of delinquency in a juvenile proceeding is not synonymous with the conviction of a crime. Nevertheless, a juvenile cited under a petition to appear for an inquiry into his alleged delinquency is entitled to the constitutional safeguards of due process and fairness. In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517, 169 S.E. 2d 879; In re Alexander, 8 N.C. App. 517, 174 S.E. 2d 664. These safeguards include notice of the charge or charges upon which the petition is based. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 87 S.Ct. 1428.

Here the petition sufficiently alleged the offense of larceny. The amendment in no way changed the nature of the offense but simply identified more specifically the owner of the property allegedly stolen. Allowing the amendment under these circumstances was within the sound discretion of the court.

The record fails to show that appellant was denied any constitutional safeguards at any stage of the proceedings.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GRAHAM, Judge.

Appellant contends the court committed error in refusing motion made on his behalf to quash the petition upon which the hearing was conducted and in allowing the petition to be amended. The amendment was made on the day of the hearing but before the hearing commenced.

Juvenile proceedings in this State are not criminal prosecutions and a finding of delinquency in a juvenile proceeding is not synonymous with the conviction of a crime. Nevertheless, a juvenile cited under a petition to appear for an inquiry into his alleged delinquency is entitled to the constitutional safeguards of due process and fairness. In re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517, 169 S.E. 2d 879; In re Alexander, 8 N.C. App. 517, 174 S.E. 2d 664. These safeguards include notice of the charge or charges upon which the petition is based. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 18 L. Ed. 2d 527, 87 S.Ct. 1428.

Here the petition sufficiently alleged the offense of larceny. The amendment in no way changed the nature of the offense but simply identified more specifically the owner of the property allegedly stolen. Allowing the amendment under these circumstances was within the sound discretion of the court.

The record fails to show that appellant was denied any constitutional safeguards at any stage of the proceedings.

No error.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 S.E.2d 162, 11 N.C. App. 437, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-jones-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack