{
  "id": 8621264,
  "name": "STATE v. BILL GIBBS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gibbs",
  "decision_date": "1951-10-10",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "261",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "234 N.C. 259"
    }
  ],
  "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": "12 S.E. 2d 654",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N.C. 769",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624806
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0769-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S.E. 594",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N.C. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627683
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0592-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 S.E. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N.C. 734",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616357
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0734-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.E. 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N.C. 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631167
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0700-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N.C. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619529
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0373-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 166",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 414",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620799
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "p. 415"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0414-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 392",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630164
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "p. 420"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0419-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 386,
    "char_count": 7488,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.513,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.347692368829503e-07,
      "percentile": 0.87454867059817
    },
    "sha256": "b33a13a2fb5da34178c24d769994da31e5ca7cfc8503f36f422655adf1035c60",
    "simhash": "1:3fe144e10c6a6f5a",
    "word_count": 1283
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:56.500685+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BILL GIBBS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHNSON, J.\nThe purpose of Chapter 539 of Public-Local Laws of 1933, as shown by its title, is to protect hunting and fishing and timber reservations in Yancey County, and the Act provides: \u201cthat it shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon any hunting and fishing or timber reservation in Yancey County, without a written permission from the owner . . .\u201d\nThe properties protected by the Act are \u201creservations.\u201d The word reservation as applied to a description of land has a definite, specific meaning. It is defined in Webster as \u201ca tract of public land reserved for some special use, as for schools, for forests, for the use of the Indians, etc.\u201d According to Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 2d Ed., p. 1026, \u201cIn public land laws of the United States, a reservation is a tract of land, more or less considerable in extent, which is by public authority withdrawn from sale or settlement, and appropriated to specific public uses; such as parks, military posts, Indian lands, etc.\u201d\nThe essential elements of the crime created by the Public-Local Act under which the bill of indictment was drawn are (1) entry (2) upon a hunting and fishing or timber reservation in Yancey County (3) without a written permission from the owner.\nThe bill of indictment does not charge that the defendant entered upon any hunting and fishing or timber reservation. This omission renders the bill fatally defective. S. v. Miller, 231 N.C. 419, 57 S.E. 2d 392; S. v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166; S. v. Jachson, 218 N.C. 373, 11 S.E. 2d 149; S. v. Ballangee, 191 N.C. 700, 132 S.E. 795.\nDecision here would seem to be controlled by the rule stated in S. v. Morgan, supra (226 N.C. 414, p. 415) : \u201cIt is a universal rule that no indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, can be good if it does not accurately and clearly allege all tbe constituent elements of tbe offense charged.\u201d\nAlso in point is tbe following observation of Adams, J., in S. v. Ballangee, supra (191 N.C. 700, pp. 701 and 702) : \u201cTbe breach of a statutory offense must be so laid in tbe indictment as to bring tbe case within tbe description given in tbe statute and inform tbe accused of tbe elements of tbe offense. . . . Merely charging in general terms a breach of tbe statute and referring to it in the indictment is not sufficient.\u201d\n\u201cTbe bill need not be in tbe exact language of tbe statute, but it must contain averments of all tbe essential elements of tbe crime created by tbe act.\u201d S. v. Miller, supra (231 N.C. 419, p. 420).\nIn S. v. Jackson, supra (218 N.C. 373), Justice Barnhill succinctly states tbe formula this way: \u201cAn indictment for an offense created by statute must be framed upon tbe statute, and this fact must distinctly appear upon tbe face of the indictment itself; and in order that it shall so appear, tbe bill must either charge tbe offense in tbe language of tbe act, or specifically set forth tbe facts constituting tbe same. . . . 'Where tbe words of a statute are descriptive of tbe offense, an indictment should follow tbe language and expressly charge tbe described offense on tbe defendant so as to bring it within all tbe material words of tbe statute. Nothing can be taken by intendment. . . .\u2019 \u201d\nIn tbe light of tbe foregoing authorities, it is manifest that tbe court below properly quashed tbe bill of indictment. Tbe decisions cited by tbe State seem to be distinguishable.\nWe have not overlooked G.S. 15-153, which provides that an indictment shall not be quashed by reason of a mere \u201cinformality or refinement.\u201d This statute, however, does not dispense with tbe requirement that tbe essential elements of an offense must be charged, and many decisions of this Court have so held. See S. v. Tarlton, 208 N.C. 734, 182 S.E. 481, and cases cited; S. v. Cole, 202 N.C. 592, 163 S.E. 594, and cases cited and analyzed.\nNor have we overlooked G.S. 15-143, which provides that a bill of particulars may be ordered in tbe discretion of tbe court. Tbe function of a bill of particulars under tbe statute is to provide \u201cfurther information not required to be set out\u201d in tbe bill of indictment, but never to supply matter required to be charged as an essential ingredient of tbe offense. S. v. Cole, supra; S. v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 769, 12 S.E. 2d 654.\nFor tbe reasons given, tbe judgment below is\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHNSON, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State, appellant.",
      "W. E. Anglin and Garrett D. Bailey fox defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BILL GIBBS.\n(Filed 10 October, 1951.)\n1. Public Lands \u00a7 1\u2014\nThe word \u201creservation\u201d as descriptive of land has the definite and specific meaning of public land reserved for some special use, such as parks, forests, Indian lands, etc.\n2. Hunting and Fishing \u00a7 1\u2014\nAn indictment charging that defendant entered and hunted upon property leased by a gun club without written permission from the owner or lessee in violation of Chap. 539, Public-Local Laws 1933, does not charge the offense defined by the statute, since the statute refers to hunting and fishing on \u201creservations\u201d without written permission from the owner, and the indictment is properly quashed upon motion.\n3. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 9\u2014\nAn indictment for a statutory offense must contain averments of all essential elements of the crime created by the statute, and merely charging a breach of the statute in general terms and referring to it in the indictment is not sufficient.\n4. Same\u2014\nThe statutory directive that an indictment shall not be quashed for informality or refinement does not dispense with the requirement that each essential element of the offense must be charged. G.S. 15-153.\n5. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 17\u2014\nA bill of particulars is for the purpose of providing information not required to be set out in the indictment, and can never supply matter required to be charged as an essential ingredient of the offense. G.S. 15-143.\nAppeal by State of North. Carolina from Bobbitt, J., at Regular August Term, 1951, of YaNcey.\nAffirmed.\nCriminal accusation under bill of indictment in the Superior Court of Yancey County charging that the defendant \u201c. . . did enter upon and hunt and trespass on the property leased by Yancey Rod and Gun Club without written permission from the owner or Lessee, in violation of Public-Local Laws, 1933, Chapter 539.\u201d\nChapter 539 of the Public-Local Laws of 1933 is entitled \u201cAn act to protect hunting and fishing, and timber reservations in Yancey County,\u201d and provides:\n\u201cSection 1. That it shall be unlawful for any person to enter upon any hunting and fishing or timber reservations in Yancey County, without a written permission from the owner, and any person violating the provisions of this act shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars, nor more than one hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.\u201d\nUpon the call of the case and before plea, the defendant moved the court to quash the bill of indictment for that it does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a violation of Chapter 539, Public-Local Laws of 1933, and for that the act is unconstitutional.\nThe court was of the opinion that the bill of indictment does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a criminal offense under Chapter 539 of the Public-Local Laws of 1933, and for that reason, and on that ground alone, allowed the defendant\u2019s motion to quash the bill, - and judgment was entered accordingly, from which the State appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State, appellant.\nW. E. Anglin and Garrett D. Bailey fox defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 305,
  "last_page_order": 307
}