State v. Sexton.

10 N.C. 184
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1824·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

It is a familiar rule that the indict-inent should state that the Defendant committed the of-fence on a specific day and year, but it is Unnecessary to prove, in any case, the precise day or year, except where the time enters into the nature of the offence. But if the indictment lay the offence to have been committed, on an impossible day, or on a future day, the objection is as fatal as if no time at all had been inserted. Nor are indictments within the operation of the Statutes of Jeofails, and cannot, therefore; be amended $ being the finding of a Jury upon oath, the Court cannot amcnd# without the concurrence of the Grand Jury by whom the bill is found. These rules are too plain to require authority, and shew that the judgment of the Court was right, and must be affirmed.

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

State v. Sexton., 10 N.C. 184 (N.C. 1824).

10 N.C. 184 (State v. Sexton.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Haigler
188 S.E.2d 586 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. . Dowd
161 S.E. 205 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1931)
State v. Papernak
181 N.W. 955 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1921)
People v. Weinstein
99 N.E. 589 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1912)
Terrell v. State
75 N.E. 884 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1905)
State v. . Cody
26 S.E. 252 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1896)
State v. . Hendricks
1 N.C. 532 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1802)