Court Opinion

ID: 9631835
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:51:50.988597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:02.095751
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(dissenting): I cannot agree. As I see it, the requirements as to the allegations required in an indictment for perjury are clear. The legislative history of G. S. 1949, 21-706, wherein these requirements were reduced somewhat, convinces me the legislature intended to go so far and no farther. The decision of the majority eliminates from the statute the requirement “averring such court or person to have competent authority to administer the same.” Such is the province of the legislature, not the court. I prefer the rule laid down in Hill v. United States, 54 F. 2d 599. There the court of appeals construed a statute similar to ours and said:
“Again, there is no averment that James Talty had competent authority to administer the purported oath, as appears in the affidavit supra. This averment seems to be a necessary one under the statute, which abbreviates the common law form of indictment for perjury and sets forth the substance of what it shall contain.”
The administration and development of the criminal law is not bettered by courts waiving aside plain, statutory requirements in indictments. Such practice is actually the cause of much careless pleading.
Parker and Wertz, JJ., concur in the foregoing dissent.