To download a PDF file of this update, click here

The Supreme Court Removes Its Prophylactic Protection:
Montejo v. Louisiana1
Legal Question of The Week

Vol. 2, Number 13
June 5, 2009 

Brian Beasley
Fan of Subtle Innuendo and Legal Adviser, HPPD

            Before we get into the REAL topic for this week’s legal update, I want to answer a question that several of you stopped by to ask about a case that came up in our local District Court last week.  It seems that a judge dismissed a larceny charge because the warrant had the victim business’ name incorrect.  A point often overlooked when a larceny is charged from a business is an arcane rule that the warrant or indictment must allege that the business is a legal entity capable of owning property2 (in other words, a corporation) unless the name of the business includes words like “corporation,” “incorporated,” or “limited,” or the abbreviations for those words which indicate that it is a corporation.3  This rule only applies to larceny and embezzlement and not to burglary, breaking and entering, or concealment of merchandise.4

            The best practice for all charging documents where a business is involved is to use the actual legal name of the business.  If you are unsure, you should check the N.C. Secretary of State’s webpage at http://www.secretary.state.nc.us/corporations/  You can search using keywords to find the legal name.  Keep in mind that for your larger franchises, your search may pull up legal name for the corporation and several other legal names for related corporations.  Searching Wal-Mart, for instance, pulls up a list of 15 corporations including not only Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. but also Wal-Mart Realty Company and Wal-Mart5 Transportation, LLC.  You will usually be able to determine which corporation name refers to the stores themselves.  I would also advise you to include the street address of the particular store in the warrant to ensure that it is clear which store you are alleging.6

            Now back to your regularly scheduled legal update…already in progress. Read More

  1. 556 U.S. _____ (2009). ↩
  2. See, e.g., State v. Norman, 149 N.C. App. 588 (2002). ↩
  3. State v. Cave, 174 N.C. App. 580 (2005) (abbreviation “Inc.” was sufficient) ↩
  4. State v. Wooten, 18 N.C. App. 652 (1973) (ownership need not be alleged for concealment of merchandise) ↩
  5. By the way, I just noticed that “Wal-Mart” doesn’t set off the red wavy line spelling error alarm.  That tells you how famous the Wal-Mart name is. ↩
  6. For instance, was it the Wal-Mart on North Main Street or South Main Street? ↩
  • Share/Bookmark