Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

151 N.C. 729

66 S.E 564

State v. Green

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided December 23, 1909

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1909-12-23

, January Term, 1909, of FeaNKLIN. Criminal prosecution for failure to work tbe public roads, beard on appeal from a justice’s court. Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1909-12-23

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently July 2011

6 state decisions

30190919101920193019401950196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Hoke, J.

¶1We have recently held, in State v. Lunsford, 150 N. C., 862, that in every criminal prosecution, whether by indictment or warrant, or warrant taken in connection with tbe affidavit, tbe charge must be so stated as to show that a crime has been committed, and same must be described with sufficient certainty to inform tbe defendant of tbe nature of tbe accusation against him, and to enable tbe court to proceed to judgment in case of conviction.

¶2In tbe present case, and under several decisions of tbe Court, tbe warrant is fatally defective in failing to allege that defendant was assigned to work tbe road described and failing to negative tbe payment of tbe one dollar allowed by the law in lieu of service. State v. Neal, 109 N. C., 859; State v. Baker, 106 N. C., 758; State v. Pool, 106 N. C., 698; State v. Smith, 98 N. C., 747. The motion of defendant, therefore, must be allowed and judgment against him arrested. Let tbis be certified.

¶3Error.

/151/nc/729 · .json · Public domain