Title: State v. Arnold

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

208 S.E.2d 646 (1974)
285 N.C. 751
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Vesta Ray ARNOLD.
No. 2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
October 10, 1974.
*647 Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Asst. Atty. Gen. Robert G. Webb, Raleigh, for the State.
Donald R. Smith, Durham, for defendant appellant.
MOORE, Justice.
The sole question presented to this Court is whether the defendant can be lawfully convicted of the felony of attempt to commit arson (G.S. § 14-67) on an indictment charging him with arson.
Arson is not defined by our statutes but is a common law offense. State v. Long, 243 N.C. 393, 396, 90 S.E.2d 739, 741 (1956). See State v. Ingland, 278 N.C. 42, 49, 178 S.E.2d 577, 581 (1970). By G.S. § 14-58 arson is made a felony.
Defendant contends that there can be no lesser included offense of an attempt to commit arson under a bill of indictment for arson. Contrary to this contention, G.S. § 15-170 provides that upon the trial of any indictment a defendant may be convicted of the crime charged therein, or a lesser degree of the same crime, or of an attempt to commit the crime so charged, or of an attempt to commit a lesser degree of the same crime. "An attempt to commit a crime is an indictable offense, and, as a matter of form, and on proper evidence, in this jurisdiction, a conviction may be sustained on a bill of indictment making a specific charge, or one which charges a completed offense." State v. Addor, 183 N.C. 687, 110 S.E. 650 (1922). State v. Willis, 255 N.C. 473, 121 S.E.2d 854 (1961); State v. Parker, 224 N.C. 524, 31 S.E.2d 531 (1944).
In his brief counsel for defendant states:
The common law rule that an attempt to commit a felony is a misdemeanor remains unchanged in this State except where otherwise provided by statute. G.S. § 4-1; State v. Hare, 243 N.C. 262, 90 *648 S.E.2d 550 (1955); State v. Surles, 230 N.C. 272, 52 S.E.2d 880 (1949). So far as an attempt to commit arson is concerned, this rule was changed by G.S. § 14-67, which in part provides:
As stated in State v. Stephens, 170 N.C. 745, 87 S.E. 131 (1915): "At common law an attempt to commit a felony was a misdemeanor. [Citations omitted.] But now, under Revisal, 3336 [now G.S. 14-67], an attempt to commit arson is made a felony." The Court then in the same case directly answered the question which is now before us by stating: "If the defendant had been charged with committing arson, he could have been convicted of an attempt to do so." The Court cited Revisal, 3269, which is now G.S. § 15-170.
In State v. Riera, 276 N.C. 361, 368, 172 S.E.2d 535, 540 (1970), it is stated:
To prove common law arson the State must show malicious and wilful burning of the dwelling house of another. State v. Long, supra; State v. Anderson, 228 N.C. 720, 47 S.E.2d 1 (1948). Proof of an attempt to so burn an inhabited house of another would meet the requirements of G.S. § 14-67. The indictment for arson included all the elements necessary to prove the felony, under G.S. § 14-67, of an attempt to commit arson, and these elements could be proved by proof of the facts alleged in the indictment. We, therefore, hold that the felony created by G.S. § 14-67 is a lesser included offense of the crime of arson alleged in the bill of indictment.
Defendant contends that he was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. The bill of indictment is sufficient if it charges the offense in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner with averments sufficient to enable the court to proceed to judgment and bar a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. G.S. § 15-153; State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 185 S.E.2d 677 (1971); State v. Anderson, 259 N.C. 499, 130 S.E.2d 857 (1963).
Here, it was charged that defendant unlawfully, wilfully, feloniously, and maliciously *649 did burn a dwelling house owned by Robert Chandler, located at 328 Chandler Road, Durham, North Carolina, on the 23rd day of March 1973. The solicitor, before the trial, announced that the State under this indictment would seek only a verdict of guilty of attempt to burn this house. Clearly, defendant was informed of the charge against him. Being convicted and sentenced under this indictment, he could not again be lawfully indicted and tried for this offense. Defendant's contention that he was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him is without merit.
Under the provisions of G.S. § 14-67, an attempt to commit arson is now a felony rather than a common law misdemeanor. Therefore, the sentence of seven to eight years' imprisonment was properly imposed.
The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Affirmed.
BOBBITT, C. J., not sitting.