State v. . Allen
Cases that cite this one
5 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Hobson (N.C. Ct. App. 1984)
- State v. Medlin (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
- State v. Moore (N.C. 1953)
- State v. Ellison (N.C. 1949)
- State v. . Jones (N.C. 1946)
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
Willfulness is an essential element of the offense with which defendant is charged and for which he was tried in Superior Court. G., S., 49-2. S. v. Moore, 220 N. C., 535, 17 S. E. (2d), 661; S. v. Clarke, 220 N. C., 392, 17 S. E. (2d), 468; S. v. Tyson, 208 N. C., 231, 180 S. E., 85, and other cases. This element is lacking in the verdict as returned. Hence, the verdict is insufficient to support a judgment. S. v. Cannon, 218 N. C., 466, 11 S. E. (2d), 301; S. v. Lassiter, 208 N. C., 251, 179 S. E., 891; S. v. Barbee, 197 N. C., 248, 148 S. E., 249; S. v. Parker, 152 N. C., 790, 67 S. E., 35.
If the verdict had been simply “Guilty” or “Guilty as charged,” it would have been sufficient. But as was said by Stacy, C. J., speaking for the Court in the Lassiter case, supra, “When the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without reference to the charge, as in the instant case, it is essential that the spelling be correct.”
There will be a
Venire de novo.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.