Per Curiam. The Court is of opinion, that a bill of Sfidictmcnt ha\ing been found against the Defendant in *184 the County Court, at December Sessions in 1822, for the same offence, is no defence against the present indictment in the Superior Court; inasmuch as it appears 0H the pleadings, that a nolle prosequi had been entered on the said first indictment prior to the time of pleading in this. That as tjie effect of a nolle prosequi is to put the Defendant, without day, upon tiiat indictment, he becomes, while he is so, amenable on another indictment in any Court having jurisdiction of the offence; otherwise a nolle prosequi would operate as a bar to any other prosecution. The power of issuing new process after a nolle prosequi, cannot affect this question, because no process lias been issued. The plea is, therefore, insufficient and must be overruled. — Judgment reversed.
Citator
UpLaw has not yet analyzed State v. . McNeill. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.
- Cited by
- 3 opinions
STATEv. McNEILL,10 N.C. 183(1824)
STATE v. McNEILL. — From Cumberland.
Supreme Court of North Carolina
A warrant issued to apprehend defendant, and on the 5th of October he was bound to appear at December term of the county court. On the 28 October a bill for the same offense was found against the defendant in the Superior Court, and when the defendant appeared in the county court in December anolle prosequiwas entered on the bill found against him at that term. It was held that as the effect of anolle prosequiis to put the defendant, without day, upon the indictment to which it applies, he when in that situation becomes amenable on another indictment in any court having jurisdiction of the offense; otherwise anol. pros. would amount to an acquittal.
ON 23 September, 1822, a warrant issued to apprehend the defendant, who was charged with having committed an assault and battery; on 5 October, 1822, he entered into recognizance before a justice of the peace to appear at December Term, 1822, of Cumberland County court and at that term a bill of indictment was found, on which anolle prosequiwas entered at the same term.
At the term of Cumberland Superior Court which commenced on 28 October, 1822, this bill of indictment was found against the defendant for the same offense, to which at Spring Term, 1823, he pleaded his apprehension by warrant, and the finding of the bill in the county court, to which the solicitor for the State replied thenolle prosequi, and defendant demurred.Norwood, J., who presided, sustained the demurrer and gave judgment for the defendant, from which the State appealed.
PER CURIAM.
The Court is of opinion that a bill of indictment having been found against the defendant in the county court at December sessions in 1822, for the same offense, is no defense against (184) the present indictment in the Superior Court, inasmuch as it appears on the pleadings that anolle prosequihad been entered on the said first indictment prior to the time of pleading in this. That as the effect of anolle prosequiis to put the defendant, without day, upon that indictment, he becomes while he is so, amenable to anotherPage 95indictment in any court having jurisdiction of the offense; otherwise anolle prosequiwould operate as a bar to any other prosecution. The power of issuing new process after anolle prosequicannot affect this question, because no process had been issued. The plea is, therefore, insufficient and must be overruled.
PER CURIAM. Reversed.Cited: S. v. Tisdale,19 N.C. 161;S. v. Casey,44 N.C. 210;S. v.Respass,85 N.C. 536.