State v. . Strange
This text of 111 S.E. 350 (State v. . Strange) 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.
Opinion
The defendant assigns as error “his Honor’s pronouncing judgment” in the case in which the defendant had pleaded guilty at a *776 previous term. But the record shows that bis Honor, instead of pronouncing judgment, ordered the defendant into custody under the judgment previously rendered, upon finding that be bad not complied with its terms. This procedure is sustained by the decisions of this Court. S. v. Everitt, 164 N. C., 399; S. v. Greer, 173 N. C., 759; S. v. Hoggard, 180 N. C., 678.
The defendant contends, in the second place, that there was no sufficient evidence to support bis Honor’s instruction as to the unlawful transportation of the liquor. If this should be granted, still in support of two other counts there was ample evidence, and the jury returned a general verdict. Where there are several counts in an indictment, and there is evidence relating only to one, a general verdict will be presumed to have been returned on the count to which the evidence applies. S. v. Long, 52 N. C., 24; S. v. Cross, 106 N. C., 650; S. v. Toole, ibid., 736; S. v. Gilchrist, 113 N. C., 673; S. v. May, 132 N. C., 1021; S. v. Gregory, 153 N. C., 646.
Wfi find no error, and this will be certified.
No error.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
111 S.E. 350, 183 N.C. 775, 1922 N.C. LEXIS 365, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-strange-nc-1922.