State v. Jacobs

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Jacobs

176 S.E.2d 833, 9 N.C. App. 597, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1416

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 21, 1970

DocketNo. 7016SC530

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 S.E.2d 833 (State v. Jacobs) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Jacobs, 176 S.E.2d 833, 9 N.C. App. 597, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1416 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

VAUGHN, Judge.

The sole question presented on this appeal is properly stated by the appellant as follows:

“Whether the trial court erred when it allowed defendant’s motion to quash the warrant on the grounds that the name of the defendant did not appear in the complaint for arrest or in the warrant for arrest, but appeared only in the caption or title?”

We hold that appellant’s question should be answered in the affirmative. The complaint and the warrant are on a single page. The complaint refers to the title of the action. The warrant refers to the complaint. The complaint is, by reference, incorporated into the warrant. “When the title, the complaint and the warrant are considered together as parts of the same instrument and proceeding, they point out the defendant with due certainty as the person committing the offenses alleged. S. v. Poythress, 174 N.C. 809, 93 S.E. 919.” State v. Sawyer, 233 N.C. 76, 62 S.E. 2d 515.

Reversed.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

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

VAUGHN, Judge.

The sole question presented on this appeal is properly stated by the appellant as follows:

“Whether the trial court erred when it allowed defendant’s motion to quash the warrant on the grounds that the name of the defendant did not appear in the complaint for arrest or in the warrant for arrest, but appeared only in the caption or title?”

We hold that appellant’s question should be answered in the affirmative. The complaint and the warrant are on a single page. The complaint refers to the title of the action. The warrant refers to the complaint. The complaint is, by reference, incorporated into the warrant. “When the title, the complaint and the warrant are considered together as parts of the same instrument and proceeding, they point out the defendant with due certainty as the person committing the offenses alleged. S. v. Poythress, 174 N.C. 809, 93 S.E. 919.” State v. Sawyer, 233 N.C. 76, 62 S.E. 2d 515.

Reversed.

Judges Campbell and Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

176 S.E.2d 833, 9 N.C. App. 597, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1416, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jacobs-ncctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack