{
  "id": 8652633,
  "name": "THE STATE v. HARVEY COOPER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cooper",
  "decision_date": "1889-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "890",
  "last_page": "892",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "104 N.C. 890"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "6 Ired., 440",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ired.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275595
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/28/0440-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 255,
    "char_count": 4351,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.523132043605631
    },
    "sha256": "a0612fc463b8495aeccb300ad99f61ae3c29be365b0dde4072109f89b663731e",
    "simhash": "1:8bf5ffb56b107dc4",
    "word_count": 751
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:43.175763+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. HARVEY COOPER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Avery, J.\n\u2014 after stating the facts: The prosecution of a criminal action is begun when the grand jury presents in Court a paper, charging that a person mentioned therein committed an offence, designated by its technical name, or by a description equivalent to giving such name, and the presentment so made is recorded in the minutes of the Court. If the Clerk neglects to enter it, the Court may subsequently cause a record of the presentment to be made, or of the time when it was brought in by the grand jury. In determining1 the question, whether a prosecution is barred by the statute of limitations, it is proper to estimate the time' that elapsed between the commission of the offence and the bringing into Court of the presentment. State v. Cox, 6 Ired., 440; The Code, \u00a71177.\nAn indictment can, for the purpose of preventing the bar of the prosecution by the lapse of time, be connected, at the option of the Solicitor, by proof with a previous presentment for the same offence; but it does not follow that the defendant can do the same thing in order to oust the jurisdiction of the Court.\nWhen the grand jury unadvisedly made the presentment within six months after the offence was committed, the Court of a Justice of the Peace had an exclusive right to try it, but the concurrent jurisdiction of the Superior Court attached immediately on the expiration of that period and before the indictment was found. The Code, \u00a7\u00a7 892 and 922, provides that the Superior Court shall have original jurisdiction \u201cof all offences whereof exclusive original jurisdiction is given to Justices of the Peace, if some Justices of the Peace shall not within six months after the commission of the offence pi\u2019oceed to take official cognizance thereof.\u201d No Justice of the Peace had taken cognizance of this case, so far as the testimony shows, up to the time of trial, and the bar of former acquittal or conviction was not pleaded or relied on.\nBut it is contended that the inadvertent act of the grand jury in making the presentment in June, 1888, could be used by the defendant to defeat the jurisdiction of the Superior Court on the trial of any indictment found within two years, and would forever prevent the punishment of the defendant unless a prosecution should be instituted in a Justice\u2019s Court. The presentment in the Superior Court, if made within six months, of an offence for that time exclusively cognizable in a Justice\u2019s Court, is, like an indictment for the same,, utterly void for all purposes whatever. It cannot, therefore, in any way, affect the validity of a prosecution, subsequently instituted in accordance with law.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Avery, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. HARVEY COOPER.\nCriminal Proceedings \u2014 Jurisdiction.\nThe fact that a grand jury made a presentment of one of those offences of which a Justice of the Peace has original exclusive jurisdiction \u2014 if exercised within six months after its commission \u2014 before the period when the concurrent jurisdiction of the Superior Courts arose, will not defeat the jurisdiction acquired by the latter on an indictment preferred after the expiration of the six months.\nThis was an Indictment for disturbing a school (under \u00a7 2592 of The Code), tried under Merrimon, J., at the Spring Term, 1889, of the Superior Court of Graham County.\nThe offence was committed on the 27th of December, 1887, and a presentment of it was made by the grand jury at a term of. the Court begun June 4th, 1888, within six months afterwards, The indictment was found at a term begun on the 27th of October, 1888. There was no evidence that any Justice of the Peace had taken cognizance of the case before it was tried at said Spring Term, 1889. On the trial there was evidence of such disorderly conduct on the part of the defendant as amounted to a disturbance of the school.\nBut after the testimony was offered, the defendant moved to dismiss, on the ground that the punishment prescribed by said section of The Code, was a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or imprisonment for not more than thirty days, and the presentment having been made within six months after the offence was committed, it was then exclusively within the jurisdiction of a Justice of the Peace, and, as. the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to try then, it had not since acquired the right.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0890-01",
  "first_page_order": 906,
  "last_page_order": 908
}