TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Brown

State v. Bose Brown.

State v. Brown, 108 S.E. 349 (N.C. 1921)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
September 28, 1921
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
108 S.E. 349182 N.C. 7611921 N.C. LEXIS 324
Headnotes
Criminal Taw — Indictments—Consolidation of Bill. Where the grand jury has found two separate indictments, one charging arson and the other the less offense of house burning, both arising from the same transaction, the two may be consolidated and a conviction of the less offense will be sustained on appeal. O. S., 4622.
Summary
Appeal by defendant from Kerr, Jat February Term, 1921, of HERTFORD. Criminal prosecution, tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with arson and house-burning. The defendant was acquitted of the charge of arson, but convicted of the lesser offense. From the judgment pronounced upon the verdict, the defendant 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 — Per Curiam

Pee Curiam.

There were originally two bills found by the grand jury: one charging the defendant with the common-law crime of arson and the other with the statutory offense of house-burning, both of which arose out of the same transaction. TJpon motion of the solicitor, the bills were consolidated; and the defendant was tried, over his objection, on both counts at the same time. This was clearly permissible under O. S., 4622, which provides that “if two or more indictments are found in such cases (where they arise out of the same transaction), the court will order them to be consolidated.”

The remaining exception relied on by defendant was to his Honor’s refusal to grant the motion for judgment as of nonsuit. The evidence was entirely circumstantial; but, from a perusal of the record, we think it was quite sufficient to support the verdict.

We have found no error; and this will be certified to the Superior Court.

No error.

How later courts describe this case

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

1925: 11935: 119252026peak 1925 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Malpass127 S.E. 248 (N.C. 1925)
  2. State v. McLean182 S.E. 700 (N.C. 1935)

Most recent

  1. State v. McLean182 S.E. 700 (N.C. 1935)
  2. State v. Malpass127 S.E. 248 (N.C. 1925)

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