State v. . Scurlock

149 S.E. 680, 197 N.C. 475, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 274
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 2, 1929
StatusPublished

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

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

Related

State v. . Caveness
78 N.C. 484 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1878)
State v. . Shew
140 S.E. 621 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1927)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
149 S.E. 680, 197 N.C. 475, 1929 N.C. LEXIS 274, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-scurlock-nc-1929.