State v. Jones

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Padgett

    82 N.C. 544 (N.C. 1880)   Cited 4 times

    It is an unwarrantable innovation in practice for a judge to set aside a verdict of "guilty" in a criminal action, and direct the entering of a verdict the reverse of that found by the jury; but as the regular and legal action of the court below ends with the setting aside of the first verdict, and the case cannot be re-heard on its merits, no appeal is allowed the state. (State v. Jones, 78 N.C. 420; State v. Lane, Id., 547; State v. Keeter, 80 N.C. 472, cited and approved.) INDICTMENT for Removing a Fence tried at Fall Term, 1879, of RUTHERFORD Superior Court, before Buxton, J.

  2. State v. Baldwin

    80 N.C. 390 (N.C. 1879)   Cited 14 times

    3. An indictment alleging that defendant, a jailor, did negligently permit the escape of prisoners charged by the superior court with murder, and that said prisoners were duly committed to his custody as jailor, is sufficient. ( State v. Griffice, 74 N.C. 316; Haywood's case, 73 N.C. 437; Jones, 78 N.C. 420; Shaw's, 3 Ire., 20, cited and approved.) INDICTMENT for an Escape tried at Fall Term, 1878, of MACON Superior Court, before Avery, J.

  3. State v. Jordan

    247 N.C. 253 (N.C. 1957)   Cited 12 times
    In S. v. Jordan, 247 N.C. 253, 100 S.E.2d 497, the indictment charged that the defendant "did unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously escape and attempt to escape from the State Prison System, said prisoner having been previously convicted of escape," etc.

    While decision is based on the provisions of G.S. 148-45, it is noted that under the general law relating to criminal escape the indictment or warrant must allege the lawfulness of the custody or facts from which the lawfulness of the custody appears. S. v. Jones, 78 N.C. 420; S. v. Baldwin, 80 N.C. 390; 30 CJS, Escape sec. 25 (b); 19 Am. Jur., Escape, Prison Breaking and Rescue sec. 24. The reasons underlying the requirement that the bill of indictment allege all essential elements of the purported offense are summarized by Parker, J., in S. v. Greer, supra.

  4. People v. Ah Teung

    92 Cal. 421 (Cal. 1891)   Cited 12 times

    In the case of State v. Leach , 7 Conn. 452, the defendant was tried for an escape, and it appearing that his imprisonment was illegal, the court held that the act, instead of being a crime, was justifiable, and further said: "It hence results that the keeper of the jail is vested with no authority; the building in which the prisoner was confined is not a jail, but as to him a mere private building, and hence he might regain his liberty, of which he was unjustly deprived; and it is no part of the case, that he made use of more force than was necessary to accomplish this object."          That there can be no escape, in the sense of the law, unless there was a lawful custody, is also held in Housh v. People , 75 Ill. 487; State v. Beebe, 13 Kan. 589; State v. Jones , 78 N.C. 420; 2 Bishop's Crim. Law, sec. 1065.          The cases cited by the attorney-general are not in conflict with the conclusion we have reached, as an analysis of them will show.

  5. State v. Deaton

    65 N.C. 496 (N.C. 1871)   Cited 1 times

    There is error. Cited: S. v. Dunston, 78 N.C. 420; S. v. Bell, 184 N.C. 717.