State v. . AllenState v. . Allen
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- WiNbobne
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.