State v. Cassada
Cases that cite this one
2 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Burnette (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
- State v. Craig (N.C. Ct. App. 1974)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The defendant assigns as error the acceptance by the court of a plea of guilty to the felony of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, when he had not been indicted for such an offense and had not waived a bill of indictment.
“The crimes of larceny and of receiving stolen goods, knowing them to have been stolen, are separate and distinct offenses. . . .” State v. Brady, 237 N.C. 675, 75 S.E. 2d 791 (1953).
In McClure v. State, 267 N.C. 212, 148 S.E. 2d 15 (1966), Chief Justice Parker stated:
*631 “G.S. 15-137 reads in relevant part: ‘No person shall be . . . put on trial before any court, but on indictment found by the grand jury, unless otherwise provided by law.’
‘There can be no trial, conviction, or punishment for a crime without a formal and sufficient accusation. In the absence of an accusation the court acquires no jurisdiction whatever, and if it assumes jurisdiction a trial and conviction are a nullity.’ 42 C.J.S., Indictments and Informations, § 1; S. v. Albarty, 238 N.C. 130, 76 S.E. 2d 381; S. v. Strickland, 243 N.C. 100, 89 S.E. 2d 781; S. v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E, 2d 166.”
In the instant case there was no bill of indictment for the crime of receiving stolen goods and neither was there a waiver of such bill of indictment pursuant to G.S. 15-140.1.
The sentence of imprisonment of defendant imposed in the trial court is vacated as a nullity.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.