State v. Whaley

153 S.E.2d 493, 269 N.C. 761, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1152
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 29, 1967
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 153 S.E.2d 493 (State v. Whaley) 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. Whaley, 153 S.E.2d 493, 269 N.C. 761, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1152 (N.C. 1967).

Opinion

Per Cueiam.

Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion to quash the warrant and his motion made in arrest of judgment.

This case is controlled by State v. Wiggs, 269 N.C. 507, 153 S.E. 2d 84, wherein Bobbitt, J., stated;

“. . . Having pleaded not guilty to said warrants in the City Court of Raleigh, a court having jurisdiction of all offenses charged, in said warrants, defendant waived defects, if any, incident to the authority of the person who issued the warrant. ‘Decisions of this Court are uniform in holding that a motion to quash the warrant or bill of indictment, if made af[762]*762ter plea of not guilty is entered, is addressed to the discretion of the trial court. The exercise of such discretion is not reviewable on appeal.’ S. v. St. Clair, 246 N.C. 183, 186, 97 S.E. 2d 840, 842, and cases cited. See also S. v. Furmage, 250 N.C. 616, 620, 109 S.E. 2d 563, 566. Too, in respect of defendant’s motions in arrest of judgment, such pleas waived defects, if any, incident to the authority of the person (s) who issued the warrants. S. v. Doughtie, 238 N.C. 228, 77 S.E. 2d 642.’’

The Kinston-Lenoir County Recorder’s Court had jurisdiction of the offenses charged in the warrant. The defendant pleaded not guilty to said warrant in that court without any motion addressed to the validity of the warrant. Therefore, the defendant waived defects, if any, incident to the authority of the person who issued the warrant. The court’s actions in refusing the motion in arrest of judgment and to quash were correct. The judgment of the lower court is

Affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Stallings
166 S.E.2d 464 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Matthews
153 S.E.2d 791 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 S.E.2d 493, 269 N.C. 761, 1967 N.C. LEXIS 1152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-whaley-nc-1967.