State v. . Cody

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Cody

31 S.E.2d 445, 224 N.C. 470, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 405

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 20, 1944

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 31 S.E.2d 445 (State v. . Cody) 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. . Cody, 31 S.E.2d 445, 224 N.C. 470, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 405 (N.C. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

This is a companion case to S. v. Ogle, herewith decided, the two having been consolidated for trial, as they arise out of the same transaction, and were heard together on appeal. To avoid repetition, reference is made to the Ogle case for statement of the facts.

The case against Cody readily survives the demurrer. He was in position to appreciate the danger of his negligent driving. As to him *471 the ease was properly submitted to the jury. S. v. Wilson, 218 N. C., 769, 12 S. E. (2d), 654.

The defendant contends, however, that the general verdict of “guilty,” without specifying the count, is too indefinite to support a judgment. The second count in the bill seems to have been disregarded on the hearing. The case was tried on the first count alone. It is the rule with us, both in civil and criminal actions, that a verdict may be given significance and correctly interpreted by reference to the pleadings, the facts in evidence, admissions of the parties, and the charge of the court. S. v. Whitley, 208 N. C., 661, 182 S. E., 338; S. v. Jones, 211 N. C., 735, 190 S. E., 733; S. v. Morris, 215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554; S. v. Bentley, 223 N. C., 563, 27 S. E. (2d), 738. And further, “where the indictment contains several counts, and the evidence applies to one or more, but not to all, a general verdict will be presumed to have been returned on the count or counts to which the evidence relates.” S. v. Snipes, 185 N. C., 743, 117 S. E., 500. It is clear from the record that the verdict speaks of the first count only. S. v. Morris, supra.

For the first offense of reckless driving the allowable penalty is not more than six months imprisonment, or a fine of not more than $500. G. S., 20-180. It may be more for a second or subsequent conviction, but there is no evidence of a former conviction here. Hence, the judgment is in excess of the statutory limit. It will be stricken out and the cause remanded for proper judgment.

Error and remanded.

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

Stacy, C. J.

This is a companion case to S. v. Ogle, herewith decided, the two having been consolidated for trial, as they arise out of the same transaction, and were heard together on appeal. To avoid repetition, reference is made to the Ogle case for statement of the facts.

The case against Cody readily survives the demurrer. He was in position to appreciate the danger of his negligent driving. As to him *471 the ease was properly submitted to the jury. S. v. Wilson, 218 N. C., 769, 12 S. E. (2d), 654.

The defendant contends, however, that the general verdict of “guilty,” without specifying the count, is too indefinite to support a judgment. The second count in the bill seems to have been disregarded on the hearing. The case was tried on the first count alone. It is the rule with us, both in civil and criminal actions, that a verdict may be given significance and correctly interpreted by reference to the pleadings, the facts in evidence, admissions of the parties, and the charge of the court. S. v. Whitley, 208 N. C., 661, 182 S. E., 338; S. v. Jones, 211 N. C., 735, 190 S. E., 733; S. v. Morris, 215 N. C., 552, 2 S. E. (2d), 554; S. v. Bentley, 223 N. C., 563, 27 S. E. (2d), 738. And further, “where the indictment contains several counts, and the evidence applies to one or more, but not to all, a general verdict will be presumed to have been returned on the count or counts to which the evidence relates.” S. v. Snipes, 185 N. C., 743, 117 S. E., 500. It is clear from the record that the verdict speaks of the first count only. S. v. Morris, supra.

For the first offense of reckless driving the allowable penalty is not more than six months imprisonment, or a fine of not more than $500. G. S., 20-180. It may be more for a second or subsequent conviction, but there is no evidence of a former conviction here. Hence, the judgment is in excess of the statutory limit. It will be stricken out and the cause remanded for proper judgment.

Error and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 S.E.2d 445, 224 N.C. 470, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cody-nc-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack