TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Thompson.

State v. . Thompson

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

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1825
Judges
Taylor
Citations
10 N.C. 613
Cited by 8 1 descriptions by later courts
Headnotes
The Attorney General has a discretionary power to enter a nolle prose« gilt, for the proper exercise of which he is responsible; the Court will not interfere unless the power be oppressively used. After entering a nol. pros, when a cause is called for trial, he may issue a capias returnable to the next term upon the same indictment.
Summary
From Wake. The defendant was indicted for permitting his negro slave to hire his own time, and when the cause was regularly called for trial before Norwood, Judge, the defendant was ready and urged for a trial; the Attorney Genera) directed a nolle prosequi to be entered in the case without assigning any reason therefor; and after the nol. pros, was entered, the Attorney General moved for a capias against the defendant, returnable to the next term of this Court, which was refused by the Court, whereupon the Attorney General appealed,

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Taylor

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 8 cases

View all citing references →
1909: 11932: 11937: 11959: 11967: 11984: 11990: 219092026peak 1990 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Klopfer v. North Carolina386 U.S. 213 (1967)
  2. State v. Furmage109 S.E.2d 563 (N.C. 1959)
  3. State v. Lonon56 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. 1932)
  4. Ex Parte Weaver570 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1990)
  5. State v. Charles190 S.E. 466 (S.C. 1937)
  6. Tice v. Department of Transportation312 S.E.2d 241 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)

Most recent

  1. Ex Parte Weaver570 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1990)
  2. Sanderson v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield570 So. 2d 675 (Ala. 1990)
  3. Tice v. Department of Transportation312 S.E.2d 241 (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)
  4. Klopfer v. North Carolina386 U.S. 213 (1967)
  5. State v. Furmage109 S.E.2d 563 (N.C. 1959)
  6. State v. Charles190 S.E. 466 (S.C. 1937)

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