Legal Opinion

State v. McDowell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided June 12, 1968No. 68SC57PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtBrock, J.

At the outset we note with favor that in the bills of indictment the solicitor used an identifying address for the premises in question. State v. Sellers, 273 N.C. 641, 161 S.E. 2d 15; State v. Burgess, 1 N.C. App. 142, 160 S.E. 2d 105.

The defendants contend there was a fatal variance between the proof and the charges in the bills of indictment. A fatal variance between the indictment and the proof is properly raised by a motion for judgment as of nonsuit. 2 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 107, p. 660. The defendants assert that they were charged with the second offense described in…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State v. SellersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  2. State v. . MumfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1947
  3. State v. BurgessCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1968
  4. State v. SladeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. State v. NormanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  2. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2008
  3. State v. LocklearCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1977
  4. State v. LeeCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  5. State v. MeltonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API