State v. Cain

State v. Cain and Price.

State v. Cain, 8 N.C. 352 (1821)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: June 5, 1821
Judges: Hair, Tayuor, Chief-Justice, Henderso
Citations: 8 N.C. 352

Cited by 7

Headnotes

When a bill is found by the same Grand Jury that made the presentment upon the testimony of some of their own body, not sworn in Court as witnesses, such proceeding is in opposition to the act of 1797, ch. 2, sec. 3, and the bill must be quashed.

Summary

From Martin. This was an indictment under the act of Assembly against fornication and adultery, and was founded upon a presentment of the Grand Jury. The bill was found by the same Jury that made the presentment upon the testimony, of some of their own body, none of whom were sworn in Court as witnesses. These facts were admitted hy the prosecuting officer, and the Court, on motion, Quashed the bill. The prosecuting ^officer appealed to this Court. ■

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

Opinion of the Court — Hair

Hair, Judge.

The act of 1797, ch. 2, sec. 3, declares “that no person shall be arrested, or charged before any Court, on a presentment made by a Grand Jury, before the attorney acting for tiie State shall prepare a bill, and the bill be found by the Grand Jury to be a true bill.” It is the province of the Grand Jury to make presentments from the knowledge of any one of their own body, or from the testimony of any witness who may give evidence before them, having been sworn in Court, and sent to them by the Court, if they think fit no to do : and I think the proper construction of the act is, that on every presentment that is made, a bill of indictment shall be framed, and the witnesses in support of the bill shall be sworn in Court, and sent to the Grand Jury — that they shall be examined de novo, and the Grand Jury shall find the bill a true bill or not, as they shall judge right from that examination, without regard to any information they might have been possessed of, when they made the presentment. I think this is the true construction of the act. If so, the bill in question, it is admitted by the attorney for the State, was not so found, and for that reason ought to be set aside as a nullity, and judgment entered for the Defendants.

Tayuor, Chief-Justice, and Henderso.y. Judge, concurred.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 7 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

McKinney v. United States199 F. 25 (8th Cir. 1912) · Dissent
State v. Thomas73 S.E.2d 283 (N.C. 1952)
State v. Sultan.54 S.E. 841 (N.C. 1906)
State v. Mitchem125 S.E. 190 (N.C. 1924)
State v. Levy158 S.E. 94 (N.C. 1931)
State v. McBroom.37 S.E. 193 (N.C. 1900) · Dissent

Most recent

State v. Cole240 S.E.2d 355 (N.C. 1978)
State v. Thomas73 S.E.2d 283 (N.C. 1952)
State v. Levy158 S.E. 94 (N.C. 1931)
State v. Mitchem125 S.E. 190 (N.C. 1924)
McKinney v. United States199 F. 25 (8th Cir. 1912) · Dissent
State v. Sultan.54 S.E. 841 (N.C. 1906)

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.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list