State v. Thompson.

10 N.C. 613
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided June 5, 1825·Published·Cited by 10 cases

Opinion

Taylor, Chief Justice.

It seems, from the authorities cited, that the Attorney General has a discretionary power to enter a nolle prosequi, for the proper exercise of which he is responsible. We know of no case where the Court has interfered with the exercise of this power, though they certainly would do so if it were oppressively used. As to the directing another capias to issue returnable to the next term, the authorities assert that such process may be awarded upon the same indictment. (6 Mod. 261. Com. Dig. “ Indictment B.” 1 Chitty C. L. 480.) We therefore think that it should have been directed in this case.

By the Court, Judgment reversed.

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

State v. Thompson., 10 N.C. 613 (N.C. 1825).

10 N.C. 613 (State v. Thompson.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Sanderson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield
570 So. 2d 675 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1990)
Ex Parte Weaver
570 So. 2d 675 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1990)
Tice v. Department of Transportation
312 S.E.2d 241 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1984)
Klopfer v. North Carolina
386 U.S. 213 (Supreme Court, 1967)
State v. Furmage
109 S.E.2d 563 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1959)
State v. Charles
190 S.E. 466 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1937)
State v. Lonon
56 S.W.2d 378 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1932)
State v. . Williams
65 S.E. 908 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)