Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

231 N.C. 419

57 S.E.2d 392

State v. Miller

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided February 3, 1950

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1950-02-03

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“[w]hen a specific intent is a constituent element of the crime, it must be alleged in the indictment. The omission of such allegation is fatal.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 246 N.C. App. 502 - State v. Oxendine

Relies on State v. . Jackson · State v. . Thomas · State v. . Morgan

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1950-02-03

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably State v. Sparrow (1970), State v. Greer (1953)

44 state decisions

1601950196019701980199020002010decided

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 →

Barnhill, J.

¶1 The defendants, on their appeal here, rely solely upon their exception to the ruling of the court below denying their motion in arrest of judgment. The motion was well advised and must he sustained.

¶2*420 It is a universal rule that no indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, can be good if it does not accurately and clearly allege all of the constituent elements of the offense sought to be charged. S. v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166.

¶3 “An indictment for an offense created by statute must be framed upon the statute, and this fact must distinctly appear upon the face of the indictment itself; and in order that it shall so appear, the bill must either charge the offense in the language of the act, or specifically set forth the facts constituting the same.” S. v. Jackson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E. 2d 149, and cases cited.

¶4 The bill need not be in the exact language of the statute, but it must contain averments of all the essential elements of the crime created by the act. “The breach of a statutory offense must be so laid in the indictment as to bring the case within the description given in the statute and inform the accused of the elements of the offense.” S. v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 132 S.E. 795. “Nothing can be taken by intendment.” S. v. Jackson, supra; S. v. Liles, 78 N.C. 496.

¶5 When a specific intent is a constituent element of the crime, it must be alleged in the indictment. The omission of such allegation is fatal. S. v. Morgan, supra.

¶6 A comparison of the alleged offense charged in the bill of indictment with the crime created by the act under which it was drawn compels the conclusion that the bill is fatally defective. The offense created by the statute is (1) the placing of dynamite etc. in any of the waters of this State (2) for the purpose of taking, killing, or injuring fish. Neither the act condemned nor the intent specified is alleged. This defect goes to the substance and not to the form of the indictment. S. v. Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594; G.S. 15-153.

¶7 As the bill of indictment under which defendants were tried and convicted is fatally defective, it will not serve to bar further prosecution if the solicitor is so advised. S. v. Morgan, supra.

¶8 The judgment herein must be arrested. It is so ordered.

¶9 Reversed.

/231/nc/419 · .json · Public domain