Legal Opinion

State v. Dudley

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided February 19, 1980No. 7920SC769Published

1Opinion of the Court

WELLS, Judge.

There is a fatal variance between the charge and the evidence. The warrant charging the offense proscribed under G.S. 14-223 must set forth in particular the duty the officer is performing or attempting to perform. State v. Wiggs, 269 N.C. 507, 153 S.E. 2d 84 (1967). Accord, State v. Waller, 37 N.C. App. 133, 245 S.E. 2d 808 (1978) (holding that although the duty must be stated for violations of G.S. 14-223, this requirement need not be met for violations of G.S. 14-33(a)).

The warrant charges that defendant “did . . . resist, delay and obstruct Curtis Rollins . . . [a]t the time…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. WiggsSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
  2. State v. KirbyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972
  3. State v. WallerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API