State v. Bond

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Bond

204 S.E.2d 713, 21 N.C. App. 434, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1827

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMay 1, 1974

DocketNo. 741SC360

StatusPublished

This text of 204 S.E.2d 713 (State v. Bond) 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

State v. Bond, 204 S.E.2d 713, 21 N.C. App. 434, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1827 (N.C. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

There is nothing in the record to show that the removal to Pasquotank County was with written consent of defendant as required by G.S. 15-135, and there is no argument that there was a defect in the original indictment which, after a valid [435]*435removal, would have permitted the Pasquotank grand jury to return a new bill under G.S. 15-136. Except for these and other statutory provisions not material here, the grand jury of Pas-quotank County has no jurisdiction to indict for crimes committed in Tyrrell County. Since the grand jury had no jurisdiction, the indictment upon which defendant was tried is void and the judgment of Judge Copeland must be affirmed. State v. Beasley, 208 N.C. 318, 180 S.E. 598; State v. Mitchell, 202 N.C. 439, 163 S.E. 581. This discharge will not, however, preclude defendant from being tried upon a valid indictment in Tyrrell County, since jeopardy does not attach on a void indictment. State v. Beasley, supra.

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

There is nothing in the record to show that the removal to Pasquotank County was with written consent of defendant as required by G.S. 15-135, and there is no argument that there was a defect in the original indictment which, after a valid [435]*435removal, would have permitted the Pasquotank grand jury to return a new bill under G.S. 15-136. Except for these and other statutory provisions not material here, the grand jury of Pas-quotank County has no jurisdiction to indict for crimes committed in Tyrrell County. Since the grand jury had no jurisdiction, the indictment upon which defendant was tried is void and the judgment of Judge Copeland must be affirmed. State v. Beasley, 208 N.C. 318, 180 S.E. 598; State v. Mitchell, 202 N.C. 439, 163 S.E. 581. This discharge will not, however, preclude defendant from being tried upon a valid indictment in Tyrrell County, since jeopardy does not attach on a void indictment. State v. Beasley, supra.

Affirmed.

Judges Campbell and Morris concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

204 S.E.2d 713, 21 N.C. App. 434, 1974 N.C. App. LEXIS 1827, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bond-ncctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack