State v. . Scurlock

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Scurlock

149 S.E. 680, 197 N.C. 475, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 274

Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 2, 1929·Published

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari, in lieu of an appeal, has been allowed in the instant case because it appeared on the face of the record proper in Barbee’s appeal, ante, 248, that the verdict as rendered was not responsive to the indictment, *476 did not convict the defendants of a crime and was not sufficient to support a judgment. S. v. Shew, 194 N. C., 690, 140 S. E., 621.

The verdict fails to find that the defendants received the ear in question, knowing- at the time that the same had been feloniously stolen or taken. S. v. Caveness, 78 N. C., 484.

It is conceded by the Assistant Attorney-General, Mr. Nash, that the petitioner is entitled to a venire de novo. It is so ordered.

Venire de novo.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The petitioner’s application for writ of certiorari, in lieu of an appeal, has been allowed in the instant case because it appeared on the face of the record proper in Barbee’s appeal, ante, 248, that the verdict as rendered was not responsive to the indictment, *476 did not convict the defendants of a crime and was not sufficient to support a judgment. S. v. Shew, 194 N. C., 690, 140 S. E., 621.

The verdict fails to find that the defendants received the ear in question, knowing- at the time that the same had been feloniously stolen or taken. S. v. Caveness, 78 N. C., 484.

It is conceded by the Assistant Attorney-General, Mr. Nash, that the petitioner is entitled to a venire de novo. It is so ordered.

Venire de novo.

State v. . Scurlock, 149 S.E. 680, 197 N.C. 475, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 274 (N.C. 1929).

Pincite

149 S.E. 680 (State v. . Scurlock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related