State v. . Edney

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Edney

164 S.E. 23, 202 N.C. 706, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 196

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMay 11, 1932

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 164 S.E. 23 (State v. . Edney) 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. . Edney, 164 S.E. 23, 202 N.C. 706, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 196 (N.C. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

At the October Term, 1931, Henderson Superior Court, the defendant herein, Plato Edney, was tried upon an indictment charging him with the murder of his wife, Margie Hill Edney, which resulted in a conviction and sentence of death. The prisoner gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, and was allowed 90 days from the adjournment of the trial term of court within which to make out and serve statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was given 60 days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or counter case.

Service of the prisoner’s statement of case on appeal, which contains no assignments of error, was accepted by the solicitor 9 January, 1932, and the same was filed in this Court 4 May, 1932. Nothing more has been done. The record has not been printed or mimeographed, and no briefs have been filed. The case should have been ready for argument 3 May, 1932, at the call of the 18th District, the district to which it belongs. Eule 7, Eules of Practice, 200 N. C., 818; Carroll v. Mfg. Co., 180 N. C., 660, 104 S. E., 528.

The prisoner having failed to prosecute his appeal, or to comply with the rules governing such procedure, the motion of the Attorney-General to affirm the judgment and dismiss the appeal must be allowed (S. v. Massey, 199 N. C., 601, 155 S. E., 255, S. v. Dalton, 185 N. C., 606, 115 S. E., 881), but this we do only after an examination of the record in the case to see that no error appears on the face thereof, as the life of the prisoner is involved. S. v. Goldston, 201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926; S. v. Ward, 180 N. C., 693, 104 S. E., 531.

The judgment, while somewhat informal, as it makes no reference to the trial or the crime of which the prisoner was convicted, is, nevertheless, we apprehend, sufficient to meet the requirements of O. S., 4659. This statute provides that when a death sentence is pronounced against any person, convicted of a capital offense, it shall be the duty of the judge pronouncing such sentence to make the same in writing, which *708 shall be filed in the papers in the case against such convicted person and a certified copy thereof transmitted by the clerk of the Superior Court, in which such sentence, is pronounced, to the warden of the State penitentiary as his authority for executing such death sentence. S. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 738, 140 S. E., 728.

Judgment, affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

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

Stacy, O. J.

At the October Term, 1931, Henderson Superior Court, the defendant herein, Plato Edney, was tried upon an indictment charging him with the murder of his wife, Margie Hill Edney, which resulted in a conviction and sentence of death. The prisoner gave notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, and was allowed 90 days from the adjournment of the trial term of court within which to make out and serve statement of case on appeal, and the solicitor was given 60 days thereafter to prepare and file exceptions or counter case.

Service of the prisoner’s statement of case on appeal, which contains no assignments of error, was accepted by the solicitor 9 January, 1932, and the same was filed in this Court 4 May, 1932. Nothing more has been done. The record has not been printed or mimeographed, and no briefs have been filed. The case should have been ready for argument 3 May, 1932, at the call of the 18th District, the district to which it belongs. Eule 7, Eules of Practice, 200 N. C., 818; Carroll v. Mfg. Co., 180 N. C., 660, 104 S. E., 528.

The prisoner having failed to prosecute his appeal, or to comply with the rules governing such procedure, the motion of the Attorney-General to affirm the judgment and dismiss the appeal must be allowed (S. v. Massey, 199 N. C., 601, 155 S. E., 255, S. v. Dalton, 185 N. C., 606, 115 S. E., 881), but this we do only after an examination of the record in the case to see that no error appears on the face thereof, as the life of the prisoner is involved. S. v. Goldston, 201 N. C., 89, 158 S. E., 926; S. v. Ward, 180 N. C., 693, 104 S. E., 531.

The judgment, while somewhat informal, as it makes no reference to the trial or the crime of which the prisoner was convicted, is, nevertheless, we apprehend, sufficient to meet the requirements of O. S., 4659. This statute provides that when a death sentence is pronounced against any person, convicted of a capital offense, it shall be the duty of the judge pronouncing such sentence to make the same in writing, which *708 shall be filed in the papers in the case against such convicted person and a certified copy thereof transmitted by the clerk of the Superior Court, in which such sentence, is pronounced, to the warden of the State penitentiary as his authority for executing such death sentence. S. v. Taylor, 194 N. C., 738, 140 S. E., 728.

Judgment, affirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 S.E. 23, 202 N.C. 706, 1932 N.C. LEXIS 196, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-edney-nc-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack