State v. . Baker

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Baker

11 S.E. 360, 106 N.C. 758

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 11 S.E. 360 (State v. . Baker) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. . Baker, 11 S.E. 360, 106 N.C. 758 (N.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

MerrimoN, C. J.:

Obviously, the charge in the warrant was insufficient. It indicated, in terms entirely too general and indefinite, the particular offence intended to be charged, and failed to specify, as it should have done, its constituent elements. But, clearly, the Court had authority to allow the amendment, even after verdict. The offence was a petty misdemeanor, and cognizable in the Court of a Justice of the Peace. The statute (The Code, § 908) confers upon the Superior and Criminal Courts very large powers of amendment in such cases. State v. Smith, 98 N. C., 747; State v. Crooke, 91 N. C., 539; State v. Smith, 103 N. C., 410; State v. Sykes, 104 N. C., 694. But when the Court allows such amendments after verdict, it should do so cautiously, and be sure that the evidence produced on the trial went to prove the offence in every material aspect of it, as if it had been completely charged in the warrant. There should be evidence to prove the offence as if properly and sufficiently charged at the time of the trial. Although it is petty, it should be fully proven. In such a case, if such evidence was not produced on the trial, the Court should set the verdict aside and grant a new trial, and then allow proper amendments, to the end the action may be tried upon its merits. Regularly, *760 such amendments should be made before trial, and thus possible mistakes may be avoided and prevented.

In this case, after-the amendments were allowed, the defendant complained and contended, that no evidence was produced on the trial to prove the offence as charged by such amendments. It does not appear that there was. As the Court, in settling the case for this Court, does not state that there was, it must be taken that there was not, because the matter was directly called to the attention of the Court; and if there was such evidence, it should have set it forth, or, at all events, have said there was evidence.

The objection that the supervisor of roads was not duly appointed seems to be without merit, but it was not ground for arresting the judgment, if it had been well founded. The judgment could be arrested only for some matter appearing on the face of the record, or that failed to appear there when it should have done so.

Error. Venire de novo.

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

MerrimoN, C. J.:

Obviously, the charge in the warrant was insufficient. It indicated, in terms entirely too general and indefinite, the particular offence intended to be charged, and failed to specify, as it should have done, its constituent elements. But, clearly, the Court had authority to allow the amendment, even after verdict. The offence was a petty misdemeanor, and cognizable in the Court of a Justice of the Peace. The statute (The Code, § 908) confers upon the Superior and Criminal Courts very large powers of amendment in such cases. State v. Smith, 98 N. C., 747; State v. Crooke, 91 N. C., 539; State v. Smith, 103 N. C., 410; State v. Sykes, 104 N. C., 694. But when the Court allows such amendments after verdict, it should do so cautiously, and be sure that the evidence produced on the trial went to prove the offence in every material aspect of it, as if it had been completely charged in the warrant. There should be evidence to prove the offence as if properly and sufficiently charged at the time of the trial. Although it is petty, it should be fully proven. In such a case, if such evidence was not produced on the trial, the Court should set the verdict aside and grant a new trial, and then allow proper amendments, to the end the action may be tried upon its merits. Regularly, *760 such amendments should be made before trial, and thus possible mistakes may be avoided and prevented.

In this case, after-the amendments were allowed, the defendant complained and contended, that no evidence was produced on the trial to prove the offence as charged by such amendments. It does not appear that there was. As the Court, in settling the case for this Court, does not state that there was, it must be taken that there was not, because the matter was directly called to the attention of the Court; and if there was such evidence, it should have set it forth, or, at all events, have said there was evidence.

The objection that the supervisor of roads was not duly appointed seems to be without merit, but it was not ground for arresting the judgment, if it had been well founded. The judgment could be arrested only for some matter appearing on the face of the record, or that failed to appear there when it should have done so.

Error. Venire de novo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 S.E. 360, 106 N.C. 758, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-baker-nc-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack