TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Sexton.

State v. . Sexton

State v. Sexton., 10 N.C. 184 (1824)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 5, 1824
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
10 N.C. 184
Headnotes
If an indictment charges an offence to have been committed on a day which is yet to come, it is as defective as it would be were no day laid. Indictments are not within the statutes of jeofails; being found by a Grand Jury on oath, the Court cannot amend them without the concurrence of the Grand Jury which finds them.
Summary
1 V From Northampton. J Indictment for an assault with intent to kill, tried before Paxton, Judge. — The bill was found in March Term, 1824, and charged the offence to have been committed on the 19th day of August, 1824. The Defendant was put upon his trial at the same Term in which the bill was found, and after the Jury was impanelled, the prosecuting officer moved the Court to amend the indictment as to the day on which the offence is charged to have been committed. The Court overruled the motion, and the Jury found the Defendant guilty, in manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment, and judgment as a crested, because the offence was laid to have been committed on a day yet to come.

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

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

It is a familiar rule that the indict-inent should state that the Defendant committed the of-fence on a specific day and year, but it is Unnecessary to prove, in any case, the precise day or year, except where the time enters into the nature of the offence. But if the indictment lay the offence to have been committed, on an impossible day, or on a future day, the objection is as fatal as if no time at all had been inserted. Nor are indictments within the operation of the Statutes of Jeofails, and cannot, therefore; be amended $ being the finding of a Jury upon oath, the Court cannot amcnd# without the concurrence of the Grand Jury by whom the bill is found. These rules are too plain to require authority, and shew that the judgment of the Court was right, and must be affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1896: 11905: 11912: 11921: 11931: 11972: 118962026peak 1896 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Papernak181 N.W. 955 (S.D. 1921) · Dissent
  2. Terrell v. State75 N.E. 884 (Ind. 1905)
  3. State v. Dowd161 S.E. 205 (N.C. 1931)
  4. State v. Cody26 S.E. 252 (N.C. 1896)
  5. State v. Haigler188 S.E.2d 586 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
  6. People v. Weinstein99 N.E. 589 (Ill. 1912)

Most recent

  1. State v. Haigler188 S.E.2d 586 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
  2. State v. Dowd161 S.E. 205 (N.C. 1931)
  3. State v. Papernak181 N.W. 955 (S.D. 1921) · Dissent
  4. People v. Weinstein99 N.E. 589 (Ill. 1912)
  5. Terrell v. State75 N.E. 884 (Ind. 1905)
  6. State v. Cody26 S.E. 252 (N.C. 1896)

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