State v. Sumner
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the CourtBabNHIll, J.
Defendant moved in this Court that the judgment pronounced be arrested. The motion must be denied. While the criminal charge contained in the warrant might have been more precisely stated, it is sufficient, as alleged, to sustain the judgment and bar another prosecution for the same offense. G.S. 15-153. It is sufficiently intelligible and explicit to (1) inform the defendant of the charge he must answer, (2) enable him to prepare his defense, and (3) sustain the judgment. This is all that is required. S. v. Shade, 115 N.C. 757; S. v. Ratliff, 170 N.C. 707, 86 S.E. 997; S. v. Francis, 157…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- State v. . MorganSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
- State v. . FrancisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1913
- State v. . ShadeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1894
- State v. . RatliffSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1915
3Cited by11 opinions
- State v. HammondsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- Meads v. North Carolina Department of AgricultureSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1998
- State v. EasonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
- State v. LancasterCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2000
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.