TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Waters

State v. Charlie Waters.

State v. Waters, 182 S.E. 483 (N.C. 1935)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 20, 1935
Judges
Schenok, Devin
Citations
182 S.E. 483208 N.C. 7691935 N.C. LEXIS 130

Opinion of the Court — ScheNok

ScheNok, J.

There are two eases against the defendant that came to the Superior Court by appeal from the municipal county court of Kin-ston and Lenoir County. The warrant in one case charges the defendant with an assault with a deadly weapon, to wit: A club, upon one Bogers, on 3 March, 1935, and the warrant in the other case charges the defendant with an assault with a deadly weapon, to wit: A knife, upon one Lokey on 18 March, 1935.

When called for trial, upon motion of the solicitor, the two cases were ordered consolidated, and to this order of consolidation the defendant in apt time objected, and makes his exception based upon this objection his principal assignment of error.

*770 C. S., 4622, reads as follows: “When there are several charges against any person for the same act or transaction, or for two or more acts ox-transactions coxxnected together, or for two or more transactions of the same class of crimes or offenses, which may be properly joined, instead of several indictments, the whole may be joined in one indictment in separate counts; and if two or more indictments are found in such eases, the court will order them to be consolidated. . . .”

Since the two transactions delineated in the two warrants are of the “same class of crimes,” the consolidation of the two cases for the purpose of trial rested in the sound discretion of the trial judge.

The other assignments of error brought forward in the brief relate to the refusal of the court to allow defendant’s demurrer to the evidence. While the evidence is conflicting, it was sufficient to carry both cases to the jury, and since the jury returned a verdict of guilty on both charges, these assignments can avail the plaintiff nothing.

No error.

DeviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1944: 11962: 11972: 119442026peak 1944 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. White123 S.E.2d 483 (N.C. 1962)
  2. State v. Johnson187 S.E.2d 98 (N.C. 1972)
  3. State v. Truelove29 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. 1944)

Most recent

  1. State v. Johnson187 S.E.2d 98 (N.C. 1972)
  2. State v. White123 S.E.2d 483 (N.C. 1962)
  3. State v. Truelove29 S.E.2d 460 (N.C. 1944)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list