Narrative Opinion Summary
A duly appointed policeman of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, qualifies as an officer under G.S. 14-230, as established by S. v. Hord. The indictments regarding alleged larceny from Belk’s Department Store lack specific information, only indicating that the events occurred sometime between 1963 and 1964. The defendant is accused of failing to arrest certain individuals but there is no evidence that any officer from Belk’s requested such an arrest or that the larceny occurred in the officer's presence. Consequently, the indictments do not satisfy the requirements for a valid bill of indictment as outlined in G.S. 15-153 and S. v. Greer. The court's decision to quash the indictments is upheld.
Legal Issues Addressed
Arrest Requirements by Police Officerssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case highlights the necessity for a request or the occurrence of a crime in an officer's presence to mandate an arrest, which was absent in this scenario.
Reasoning: The defendant is accused of failing to arrest certain individuals but there is no evidence that any officer from Belk’s requested such an arrest or that the larceny occurred in the officer's presence.
Officer Definition under G.S. 14-230subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The case reaffirms that a duly appointed policeman of the City of Charlotte qualifies as an officer under the statute.
Reasoning: A duly appointed policeman of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, qualifies as an officer under G.S. 14-230, as established by S. v. Hord.
Quashing of Indictmentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the decision to quash the indictments due to insufficient evidence and failure to meet statutory requirements.
Reasoning: Consequently, the indictments do not satisfy the requirements for a valid bill of indictment as outlined in G.S. 15-153 and S. v. Greer. The court's decision to quash the indictments is upheld.
Requirements for Valid Indictment under G.S. 15-153subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the indictments failed to meet the necessary specificity and evidentiary standards, as they did not detail the time or place of the alleged offenses adequately.
Reasoning: The indictments regarding alleged larceny from Belk’s Department Store lack specific information, only indicating that the events occurred sometime between 1963 and 1964.