State v. . Coppersmith

88 N.C. 614
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided February 5, 1883·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Smith, C. J.

The ruling is erroneous, since on a conviction of an offence cognizable by the court, as described in the bill of indictment, it must, upon motion of the solicitor, proceed to judgment, unless the verdict be set aside and a new trial ordered. The record shows that the defendants have, each of them, committed a criminal act within the jurisdiction of the trying court, and for which no motion in arrest of judgment could be entertained.

The order of dismissal is, therefore, erroneous and inconsistent with the record, and the state is entitled to judgment against each defendant, consequent upon the verdict as it stands.

The ruling of the court belbw must be reversed, and this will be certified to the end that judgment may be rendered.

Error. Reversed.

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

State v. . Coppersmith, 88 N.C. 614 (N.C. 1883).

88 N.C. 614 (State v. . Coppersmith) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. . Dockery
89 S.E. 36 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1916)
State v. . Lancaster
84 S.E. 529 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
State v. . Albertson
18 S.E. 321 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1893)