State v. . Morgan

38 S.E.2d 166, 226 N.C. 414, 1946 N.C. LEXIS 453

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: May 22, 1946
• Status: Published

Opinion

Barnhill, J.

The defendant does not bring forward his exception to the denial of his motion in arrest of judgment. Even so it raises a jurisdictional question which compels our attention. S. v. Clarke, 220 N. C., 392, 17 S. E. (2d), 468.

It is a universal rule that no indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, can be good if it does not accurately and clearly allege all the constituent elements of the offense charged. S. v. Johnson, 188 N. C., 591, 125 S. E., 183.

A valid warrant or indictment is an essential of jurisdiction. S. v. Beasley, 208 N. C., 318, 180 S. E., 598; S. v. Rawls, 203 N. C., 436, 166 S. E., 332; S. v. Banks, 206 N. C., 479, 174 S. E., 806. Hence, where no crime is charged in the warrant or bill of indictment upon which the defendant has been tried and convicted the judgment must be arrested. S. v. Johnson, ante, 266; S. v. Vanderlip, 225 N. C., 610; S. v. Clarke, supra; S. v. McLamb, 214 N. C., 322, 199 S. E., 81; S. v. Tarlton, 208 N. C., 734, 182 S. E., 481; S. v. Tyson, 208 N. C., 231, 180 S. E., 85; S. v. Cook, 207 N. C., 261, 176 S. E., 757; S. v. Lewis, 194 N. C., 620, 140 S. E., 434; S. v. Anderson, 196 N. C., 771, 147 S. E., 305; S. v. Brady, 177 N. C., 587, 99 S. E., 7; S. v. McKnight, 196 N. C., 259, 145 S. E., 281.

Under G. S., 49-2, the neglect or refusal to support an illegitimate child must hfi,willful and it must be so charged in the warrant or bill of indictment. The omission of such allegation is fatal. S. v. Vanderlip, supra; S. v. Hayden, 224 N. C., 779; S. v. McLamb, supra; S. v. Clarke, supra; S. v. Tarlton, supra; S. v. Tyson, supra; S. v. Cook, supra.

When a fatal defect disclosing want of jurisdiction appears on the face of the record this Court, in the absence of a motion, will stay further proceedings ex mero motu. S. v. Clarke, supra; Shepard v. Leonard, 223 N. C., 110, 25 S. E. (2d), 445.

Such action does not prejudice the defendant, for a void warrant will not support a plea of former jeopardy upon a subsequent trial. S. v. Ellis, 200 N. C., 77, 156 S. E., 157; S. v. Bell, 205 N. C., 225, 171 S. E., 50; S. v. Beasley, supra.

The State did not exercise its right to amend. S. v. Goff, 205 N. C., 545, 172 S. E., 407; S. v. Walker, 179 N. C., 730, 102 S. E., 404; S. v. Hurd, 197 N. C., 707, 150 S. E., 353. The warrant as it appears in the record charges no criminal offense. Hence the court below was without power or authority to pronounce judgment.

Judgment arrested.