¶1 The Court is of opinion, that a bill of Sfidictmcnt ha\ing been found against the Defendant in *184 the County Court, at December Sessions in 1822, for the same offence, is no defence against the present indictment in the Superior Court; inasmuch as it appears 0H the pleadings, that a nolle prosequi had been entered on the said first indictment prior to the time of pleading in this. That as tjie effect of a nolle prosequi is to put the Defendant, without day, upon tiiat indictment, he becomes, while he is so, amenable on another indictment in any Court having jurisdiction of the offence; otherwise a nolle prosequi would operate as a bar to any other prosecution. The power of issuing new process after a nolle prosequi, cannot affect this question, because no process lias been issued. The plea is, therefore, insufficient and must be overruled. — Judgment reversed.
10 N.C. 183
State v. . McNeill
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 5, 1824
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1824-06-05
1 vFrom Cumberland. J On the 23d of September, 1822, a warrant issued to apprehend the Defendant, who was charged with having committed an assault and battery; on the 5th of October, 1822, he entered into recognizance before a Justice of the Peace, to appear at December Term, 1822, of Cumberland County Court, and at that Term a bill of indictment was found, on which a nolle prosequi was entered at the same Term.
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently June 1986
2 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1824-06-05
View the full empirical analysis of this case →