Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Judges

STATE v. SEXTON.

1. If an indictment charges an offense to have been committed on a day which is yet to come, it is as defective as it would be were no day laid.

2. Indictments are not within the statutes of jeofails. Being found by a grand jury on oath, the court cannot amend them without the concurrence of the grand jury which finds them.

PER CURIAM.

It is a familiar rule that the indictment should state that the defendant committed the offense on a specific day and year, but it is unnecessary to prove in any case the precise day and year, except where the time enters into the nature of the offense. But if the indictment lay the offense to have been committed on an impossible day or on a future day, the objection is as fatal as if no time at all had been inserted. Nor are indictments within the operation of the statutes of jeofails, and cannot, therefore, be amended. Being the finding of a jury upon oath, the court cannot amend without the concurrence of the grand jury by whom the bill is found. These rules are too plain to require authority, and show that the judgment of the court was right, and must be

PER CURIAM. Affirmed.

Cited: S. v. Cody, 119 N.C. 909

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STATE v. SEXTON
(Jun 1, 1824)