From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Cannon

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1884
90 N.C. 711 (N.C. 1884)

Summary

In Cannon, the Supreme Court considered whether a court could revise a judgment, and increase the sentence imposed, after the original judgment had gone into effect.

Summary of this case from State v. Perry

Opinion

(February Term, 1884.)

Indictment — Motion in Arrest.

A motion in arrest of judgment cannot be grounded upon the fact that the prosecuting witness was foreman of the grand jury and endorsed the bill of indictment.

( State v. Roberts, 2 Dev. Bat., 540, cited and approved).

INDICTMENT for false pretence tried at Fall Term, 1883, of BURKE Superior Court, before Graves, J.

Attorney-General, for the State

Mr. Isaac T. Avery, for defendant.


After a verdict of guilty, the defendant moved in arrest of judgment, upon the ground that the bill of indictment found against him had been found by the grand jury at a term of the court when J. A. Lackey (the prosecutor) was the foreman of the grand jury, and signed his name on the bill as such, to the finding of the indictment as a true bill — the said Lackey having testified that he was the owner of the goods described in the indictment. His Honor refused the motion, and the defendant appealed from the judgment pronounced.


The cause assigned by the defendant for the arrest of judgment is groundless, and would be so if it appeared upon the face of the record. But a judgment can only be arrested for matter appearing, or the omission of matter which ought to appear in the record.

The record does show that Lackey was foreman of the grand jury; and it appears from the transcript that Lackey's name was endorsed on the bill as a witness, sworn and sent to the grand jury, but the endorsements on the bill of indictment form no part of the bill, and consequently no part of the record.

If an indictment be found without legal evidence, it may be quashed, or the matter may be pleaded in abatement, but not in arrest of judgment. State v. Roberts, 2 Dev. Bat., 540.

There is no error. Let this be certified to the superior court of Burke county, that the case may be proceeded with according to law.

No error. Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Cannon

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Feb 1, 1884
90 N.C. 711 (N.C. 1884)

In Cannon, the Supreme Court considered whether a court could revise a judgment, and increase the sentence imposed, after the original judgment had gone into effect.

Summary of this case from State v. Perry

In Cannon, the court entered a judgment against the defendant requiring that he pay a fine of fifty dollars and expenses and that he be committed to the custody of the sheriff until the fine was paid.

Summary of this case from State v. Perry
Case details for

State v. Cannon

Case Details

Full title:STATE v. MONROE CANNON

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Feb 1, 1884

Citations

90 N.C. 711 (N.C. 1884)

Citing Cases

State v. Perry

The crucial term here is 'execution of sentence.' Under the common law rule, execution of sentence means…

State v. Smith

This court previously has recognized that, in Oregon, a sentencing court lacks the authority to modify a…