¶1 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.
8 N.C. 352
State v. . Cain
Supreme Court of North Carolina
Decided June 5, 1821
Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1821-06-05
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. ■
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1821-06-05
How this case has been cited
Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently January 1978
1 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
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 →