State v. Cobb

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Cobb

108 S.E.2d 237, 250 N.C. 234, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 627

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 29, 1959

Docket506

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 108 S.E.2d 237 (State v. Cobb) 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. Cobb, 108 S.E.2d 237, 250 N.C. 234, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 627 (N.C. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Cueiam.

If.appears from the Judgejs’.charge to the jury that defendant’s wife was changed in a separate bill of indictment with a violation of G.S. 18-48 — it does not -appear as to whether or not she w>as charged with a violation of G.S. 18-50 —, and’ that the two bills of indictment were consolidated for trial. It clearly -appears from the *235 Judge’s charge ¡that he submitted only the first •count in defendant’s Ibill of indictment to the jury. This had the effect of a directed verdict of Not Guilty on the -second count in the defendant’s bill of -indictment. S. v. Love, 236 N.C. 344, 72 S.E. 2d 737. The Record does not show the jury’s verdict as to defendant’s wife.

Before pleading to -the bill of indictment, the defendant moved to ¡suppress the evidence on the ground that -it was illegally procuredi The eourt denied the motion, 'and defendant excepted. Defendant then pleaded Not Guilty. The search warrant was not introduced in evidence, nor was any evidence introduced that it was lost. There was no evidence as to its contents. There was no evidence that it was duly issued. There was no evidence as to who issued it. The Court permitted the State, over the defendant’s objection and exception, to introduce in evidence a jar containing whisky, which whisky was found during the search ¡of defendant’s home. Defendant ¡assigns this as error. The Attorney General, with his usual frankness, -concedes error.

The verdict and judgment are vacated, -and a new trial on the first count in the bill of indictment is ¡awarded, on authority of S. v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 771, 92 S.E. 2d 202.

New Trial.

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

Per Cueiam.

If.appears from the Judgejs’.charge to the jury that defendant’s wife was changed in a separate bill of indictment with a violation of G.S. 18-48 — it does not -appear as to whether or not she w>as charged with a violation of G.S. 18-50 —, and’ that the two bills of indictment were consolidated for trial. It clearly -appears from the *235 Judge’s charge ¡that he submitted only the first •count in defendant’s Ibill of indictment to the jury. This had the effect of a directed verdict of Not Guilty on the -second count in the defendant’s bill of -indictment. S. v. Love, 236 N.C. 344, 72 S.E. 2d 737. The Record does not show the jury’s verdict as to defendant’s wife.

Before pleading to -the bill of indictment, the defendant moved to ¡suppress the evidence on the ground that -it was illegally procuredi The eourt denied the motion, 'and defendant excepted. Defendant then pleaded Not Guilty. The search warrant was not introduced in evidence, nor was any evidence introduced that it was lost. There was no evidence as to its contents. There was no evidence that it was duly issued. There was no evidence as to who issued it. The Court permitted the State, over the defendant’s objection and exception, to introduce in evidence a jar containing whisky, which whisky was found during the search ¡of defendant’s home. Defendant ¡assigns this as error. The Attorney General, with his usual frankness, -concedes error.

The verdict and judgment are vacated, -and a new trial on the first count in the bill of indictment is ¡awarded, on authority of S. v. McMilliam, 243 N.C. 771, 92 S.E. 2d 202.

New Trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 S.E.2d 237, 250 N.C. 234, 1959 N.C. LEXIS 627, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cobb-nc-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack