State v. . Frizell
Supreme Court of North Carolina
This was an indictment for an affray tried before Bynum, J., at Fall Term, 1892, of JacksoN Superior Court. The facts are stated in the opinion.
1Opinion of the Court
Clark, J.:
The indictment was drawn for an affray against the defendant and one Jones. On the back of the bill the names of four witnesses are marked as sworn and examined. Two of these were the defendant and said Jones. Presumably, they were sent to be examined as witnesses against each other, as is not unusual on a trial before the petit jury. The grand jury returned a true bill as to the defendant, but ignored the bill as to Jones. The defendant thereupon moved to quash, because “ the back of the bill showed that the defendant was a witness against himself before the grand jury.” This…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- McKinnon v. . MorrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1889
- Lowe v. . ElliottSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. . ButtsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1884
- State v. . HinesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1881
- State v. . KriderSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1878
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by15 opinions
- State v. ChildsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. . GosnellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1935
- State v. StubbsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
- State v. . MitchemSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1924
- Taylor v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.