Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

230 N.C. 66

51 S.E.2d 895

State v. Garner

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided March 2, 1949

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1949-03-02

Relies on Salley v. Fayetteville Coca-Cola Bottling Co. · City of Charlotte v. Heath · State v. . Love

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1949-03-02

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently April 1976

4 state decisions

201949195019601970decided

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 →

Per Curiam.

¶1 At a regular term of the Superior Court of Harnett County held on the first Monday in September, 1947, it being the first *67 day of September, 1947, for tbe trial of criminal cases exclusively, tbe defendant Emmett Garner was tried upon a bill of indictment charging bim with crime of murder in tbe first degree. There was verdict of guilty of murder in tbe first degree as charged in tbe bill of indictment, upon which judgment of death as required by law 'was pronounced by tbe court at said term of court.

¶2 From this judgment defendant gave notice of appeal to tbe Supreme Court, and was allowed to appeal in forma pauperis, that is, without giving security for costs. Defendant was allowed sixty days to prepare and serve statement of case on appeal, and tbe State was allowed sixty days thereafter to prepare exceptions thereto or statement of eountercase.

¶3 Tbe Clerk of Superior Court of Harnett County certifies, under date of 22 May, 1948, that “no statement of case of appeal to tbe Supreme Court in this case has ever been filed in this office, and . . . that no writ of certiorari in this case has been served” on bim.

¶4 Tbe Attorney-General of tbe State of North Carolina moves to docket and dismiss tbe case under Eule 17 of tbe Eules of Practice in tbe Supreme Court of North Carolina, 221 N.C. 544, at p. 551, and for affirmance of tbe judgment.

¶5 In tbe absence of apparent error upon the face of tbe record tbe motion is allowed. S. v. Watson, 208 N.C. 70, 179 S.E. 455; S. v. Brooks, 224 N.C. 627, 31 S.E. 2d 754; S. v. Nash, 226 N.C. 608, 39 S.E. 2d 596; S. v. Ewing, 227 N.C. 107, 40 S.E. 2d 600; S. v. Lampkin, 227 N.C. 621, 44 S.E. 2d 30; S. v. Little, 227 N.C. 701, 41 S.E. 2d 833; S. v. West, 229 N.C. 416, 47 S.E. 2d 712.

¶6 Appeal dismissed — judgment affirmed.

/230/nc/66 · .json · Public domain