State v. Watson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Watson

158 S.E.2d 334, 272 N.C. 526, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 697

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 12, 1968

Docket830

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 158 S.E.2d 334 (State v. Watson) 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. Watson, 158 S.E.2d 334, 272 N.C. 526, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 697 (N.C. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s motion for judgment as of non-suit, made at the conclusion of the State’s evidence and renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence, should have been granted. The indictment charged that the defendant forced .open “a safe of R. C. H. Harriss.” The State’s evidence shows that the cabinet forced open on the occasion in question was the property of Harriss-Conners Chevrolet, Inc. This was a fatal' variance between the offense charged in the indictment and the proof. State v. Brown, 263 N.C. 786, 140 S.E. 2d 413; State v. Stinson, 263 N.C. 283, 139 S.E. 2d 558. “It is a rule of universal observance in the administration of criminal law that a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the bill of indictment. The allegation and proof must correspond.” State v. Jackson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E. 2d 149. “In indictments for injuries to property it is necessary to lay the property truly, and a variance in that respect is fatal.” State v. Mason, 35 N.C. 341.

Since the judgment below must be reversed because of the above mentioned variance between the indictment and the proof, it is unnecessary for us to consider, and we do not express any opinion upon, the defendant’s further contention that the file cabinet shown to have been broken open was not a “safe” within the meaning of G.S. 14-89.1.

The solicitor may, if so advised, present another bill of indictment correctly alleging the ownership of the container which he contends was forced open in violation of the above statute.

Reversed.

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

Per Curiam.

The defendant’s motion for judgment as of non-suit, made at the conclusion of the State’s evidence and renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence, should have been granted. The indictment charged that the defendant forced .open “a safe of R. C. H. Harriss.” The State’s evidence shows that the cabinet forced open on the occasion in question was the property of Harriss-Conners Chevrolet, Inc. This was a fatal' variance between the offense charged in the indictment and the proof. State v. Brown, 263 N.C. 786, 140 S.E. 2d 413; State v. Stinson, 263 N.C. 283, 139 S.E. 2d 558. “It is a rule of universal observance in the administration of criminal law that a defendant must be convicted, if convicted at all, of the particular offense charged in the bill of indictment. The allegation and proof must correspond.” State v. Jackson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E. 2d 149. “In indictments for injuries to property it is necessary to lay the property truly, and a variance in that respect is fatal.” State v. Mason, 35 N.C. 341.

Since the judgment below must be reversed because of the above mentioned variance between the indictment and the proof, it is unnecessary for us to consider, and we do not express any opinion upon, the defendant’s further contention that the file cabinet shown to have been broken open was not a “safe” within the meaning of G.S. 14-89.1.

The solicitor may, if so advised, present another bill of indictment correctly alleging the ownership of the container which he contends was forced open in violation of the above statute.

Reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 S.E.2d 334, 272 N.C. 526, 1968 N.C. LEXIS 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-watson-nc-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack