State v. Gulledge
Opinion
Tbe special verdict is fatally defective in tbat it fails to find tbe facts essential to an adjudication of tbe defendant’s guilt or innocence. S. v. Yount, 110 N. C., 597, 15 S. E., 231; S. v. Finlayson, 113 N. C., 628, 18 S. E., 200; S. v. Colonial Club, 154 N. C., 177, 69 S. E., 771; S. v. Hanner, 143 N. C., 632, 57 S. E., 154, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1. Hence, a venire de novo must be ordered. S. v. Blue, 84 N. C., 807. Tbe case stands as if there bad been a mistrial. S. v. Curtis, 71 N. C., 56.
Rut defective as it is, tbe verdict is such as to warrant an appeal by tbe State. C. S., 4649; S. v. Ewing, 108 N. C., 755, 13 S. E., 10; S. v. Robinson, 116 N. C., 1046, 21 S. E., 701; S. v. Gillikin, 114 N. C., 832, 19 S. E., 152.
Venire de novo.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
207 N.C. 374 (State v. Gulledge) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.