State v. . Moore

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Moore

12 S.E. 249, 107 N.C. 770

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 5, 1890

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 12 S.E. 249 (State v. . Moore) 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. . Moore, 12 S.E. 249, 107 N.C. 770 (N.C. 1890).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant is charged with a violation of an ordinance of the town of McFarlan. The defendant pleaded former acquittal. On the trial the jury rendered what purported to be a special verdict, which concluded as follows: "If, on these facts (the facts found), the defendant is guilty in law, we find him guilty; if, on these facts, he is not guilty in law, we find him not guilty." Thereupon the court made this entry on the record: "Upon this verdict of the jury the court finds the defendant not guilty and orders that he be discharged." The Solicitor for the State excepted and appealed to this Court. The trial was incomplete and ineffectual, certainly for the purpose of this action. The jury rendered no verdict of guilty or not guilty; they simply found that certain facts stated by them were true. It was not the province of the court to find that the defendant was guilty or not guilty. It should have said that the facts found did, or did not, constitute the offense charged in the warrant, and the verdict of the jury should have been rendered by them in accordance with the opinion of the court. (771) This is well settled, and it is strange, indeed, that courts so frequently, no doubt, by mere inadvertence, fail to observe the law in such respect. S. v. Bray, 89 N.C. 480; S. v. Stewart, 91 N.C. 568;S. v. Morris, 104 N.C. 837. There is

Error.

Cited: S. v. Monger, post, 771; S. v. Nies, post, 820; S. v. Spray,113 N.C. 688; S. v. Gillikin, 114 N.C. 835. *Page 525

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

The defendant is charged with a violation of an ordinance of the town of McFarlan. The defendant pleaded former acquittal. On the trial the jury rendered what purported to be a special verdict, which concluded as follows: "If, on these facts (the facts found), the defendant is guilty in law, we find him guilty; if, on these facts, he is not guilty in law, we find him not guilty." Thereupon the court made this entry on the record: "Upon this verdict of the jury the court finds the defendant not guilty and orders that he be discharged." The Solicitor for the State excepted and appealed to this Court. The trial was incomplete and ineffectual, certainly for the purpose of this action. The jury rendered no verdict of guilty or not guilty; they simply found that certain facts stated by them were true. It was not the province of the court to find that the defendant was guilty or not guilty. It should have said that the facts found did, or did not, constitute the offense charged in the warrant, and the verdict of the jury should have been rendered by them in accordance with the opinion of the court. (771) This is well settled, and it is strange, indeed, that courts so frequently, no doubt, by mere inadvertence, fail to observe the law in such respect. S. v. Bray, 89 N.C. 480; S. v. Stewart, 91 N.C. 568;S. v. Morris, 104 N.C. 837. There is

Error.

Cited: S. v. Monger, post, 771; S. v. Nies, post, 820; S. v. Spray,113 N.C. 688; S. v. Gillikin, 114 N.C. 835. *Page 525

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 S.E. 249, 107 N.C. 770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-moore-nc-1890.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack