State v. Anderson

130 S.E.2d 857, 259 N.C. 499, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 576
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided May 22, 1963·No. 581·Published·Cited by 16 cases

Opinion

Denny, C.J.

The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not the warrant to which the defendant pleaded guilty to operating *501 a gambling bouse was sufficient in form to charge the offense of operating such a house.

If a warrant avers facts which -constitute every element of an offense, it is not necessary that it be couched in the language of the statute. S. v. Tickle, 238 N.C. 206, 77 S.E. 2d 632; S. v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769, 12 S.E. 2d 654.

Reference to a specific statute upon which the charge in a warrant is laid is not necessary to its validity. Likewise, where a warrant charges a criminal offense but refers to a -statute that is not pertinent, such reference does not invalidate the warrant. Strong, North Carolina Index, Indictment and Warrant, section 9, page 561, et seq.

All that is required in a warrant or' bill of indictment since the adoption of G.S. 15-153 -is that it be sufficient in form to express the charge against the defendant in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner, and to contain sufficient matter to enable the court to proceed to judgment and thus bar another prosecution for the same offense.

In our opinion, the charge of operating a gambling house set out in the warrant hereinabove set forth, is sufficient to meet the requirements of the statute. S. v. Hammonds, 241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133, and cited .cases. This conclusion is supported by our decisions in S. v. Webster, 218 N.C. 692, 12 S.E. 2d 272, S. v. Morgan, 133 N.C. 743, 45 S.E. 1033; S. v. Black, 94 N.C. 809. See also Joyce on Indictments, Second Edition, section 499, page 592, and Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure, Vol. 4, section 1758, page 548, et seq.

In S. v. Black, supra, the Court said: “(I)f a person shall keep a house, a room, or other like place, for the purpose of inducing or allowing other persons to frequent the same, in small or large numbers, to bet on the result of games played and engaged in, at cards or other like devices, for money or other thing of value, such person will be guilty of keeping a gaming house. It is the keeping — using — the house, or like place, for gaming purposes, that determines its character.”

The ruling of the court -below is

Affirmed.

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

State v. Anderson, 130 S.E.2d 857, 259 N.C. 499, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 576 (N.C. 1963).

130 S.E.2d 857 (State v. Anderson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hicks
356 S.E.2d 595 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1987)
State v. Overton
298 S.E.2d 695 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1982)
State v. McKinnon
242 S.E.2d 545 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1978)
State v. Arnold
208 S.E.2d 646 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Locklear
203 S.E.2d 63 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Hawkins
199 S.E.2d 746 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Reavis
199 S.E.2d 139 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Link
186 S.E.2d 634 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Taylor
185 S.E.2d 677 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Penley
178 S.E.2d 490 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Muskelly
169 S.E.2d 530 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Rogers
159 S.E.2d 525 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Pinyatello
158 S.E.2d 596 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
Jones v. Ross
257 F. Supp. 798 (E.D. North Carolina, 1966)
Doss v. State of North Carolina
252 F. Supp. 298 (M.D. North Carolina, 1966)
State v. Hunt
144 S.E.2d 890 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)