State v. . Newsom Brindle
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an bstdiotment for fornication and adultery, tried before his Honor Judge Dice, at the Spring Term, 1855, oi\ Eorsyth Superior Court. The defendants asked his Honor to charge the jury that unless they wore satisfied from the testimony in the case, that the defendants were guilty within the time stated in the bill of indictment, they were entitled to a verdict of not guilty.
Read the full summary
This was an bstdiotment for fornication and adultery, tried before his Honor Judge Dice, at the Spring Term, 1855, oi\ Eorsyth Superior Court. The defendants asked his Honor to charge the jury that unless they wore satisfied from the testimony in the case, that the defendants were guilty within the time stated in the bill of indictment, they were entitled to a verdict of not guilty. His Honor refused so to .charge, but told the jury that they were at liberty to consider any acts that had been proved against the defendants within two years next before the finding of the bill. Defendants…
1Opinion of the Court
Nash, O. J.
The court below could not charge the jury as required; they were not restricted in their inquiry to the time embraced in the indictment, bat were at liberty, as directed by his Honor, to take into consideration any acts of the defendants, charged in the bill and proved to have been committed within two years, next before the finding of the indictment or the legal presenting of the offence. At common law it is indispensable that the indictment should fix some certain day at which every material fact, constituting the crime, occurred. The authorities, however, fully show that it is…
2Cited by2 opinions
- State v. . TrippeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
- State v. . OvercashSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1921