71 S.E. 326 | N.C. | 1911
After stating the case: It is apparent that the failure to use the word "did" in the indictment is a clerical or grammatical error, which is cured by our statute (Revisal, 3254). The meaning of (470) the bill is clear and the defendant could not have been misled, nor could he have failed to understand the exact nature of the offense charged.
In Joyce on Indictments, sec. 201, it is said: "Though an indictment *381 may be couched in ungrammatical language, this will not, of itself, render the indictment insufficient, provided the intention and meaning of the pleader is clearly apparent." And in section 202: "It is the general rule than an indictment is not vitiated by mistakes which are merely clerical, where they do not destroy the sense of the indictment, and the meaning is apparent."
A case in point is Bond v. State, 55 Ala., which holds an indictment sufficient which charged that "the defendant broke into and entered a storehouse of R. D., with the intent to steal, in which there was at the time of such breaking and entering goods, merchandise, or other valuable things kept for use."
In Com. v. Call, 21 Pick. (Mass.), 515, Justice Morton says: "The grammatical and critical objection, however ingenious and acute it may be, cannot prevail. The age is gone by when bad Latin or even bad English, so it be sufficiently intelligible, can avail against the indictment, declaration, or plea."
The evidence for the State, when considered in connection with that of the defendant, and the evidence of his good character, would have fully justified a verdict of acquittal; but we can not say there was no evidence fit to be submitted to the jury, and it was for them to determine its force and conclusiveness.
The controlling principle in determining whether there is evidence which the jury ought to consider is well stated in S. v. White,
The evidence of the State tended to prove that on the night the crime is alleged to have been committed there was a crowd in the hall until between 10 and 11 o'clock; that while the crowd was there the defendant went to the hall and was told to leave, which he did; that after the crowd left, the door was locked, as padlock, hasp and staple being used; that property of some value was left in the hall; that between 1 and 2 o'clock in the night a policeman, who slept in the building, heard a noise like some one working at the lock of the door; that he heard something break and he thought it was the lock; that he went immediately to the hall and found the door open and the lock gone; that the defendant was on the inside, and when the policeman reached the door, he sat down by the stove.
If so, the jury, could find from the evidence that the defendant broke the lock to the door and entered the hall, in which there was property, with the criminal intent alleged in the indictment.
(472) "The intent may, and generally must, be proven by circumstantial evidence, for as a rule it is not susceptible of direct proof. It may be inferred from the time and manner at and in which the entry was made, or the conduct of the accused after the entry, or both." Cyc., vol. 6, p. 244.
In S. v. McBryde,
This is the law as announced in many decisions of this and other courts, but in its application juries should be guided by the humane rule delivered by Judge Ruffin in S. v. Massey,
The evidence of criminal intent is, we think, stronger than in S. v.McBryde, supra, and in S. v. Christmas,
The motion in arrest of judgment upon the ground that the State failed to prove that the hall was the property of the town of Morganton, was properly overruled.
If there had been a failure of proof, the defendant should have taken advantage of it by a prayer for instruction, and not by motion in arrest of judgment. S. v. Baxter,
It seems, however, there was evidence of the fact. A witness testified without objection: "The building belongs to the town of Morganton," and there was no evidence to the contrary. The fact that the defendant was in the house was a circumstance to be considered by the jury upon the question of criminal intent. We find
No error.
Cited: Cabe v. R. R., ante, 405; S. v. Wellman,