Legal Opinion

State v. Sutton

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided May 24, 1972No. 723SC287PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

PARKER, Judge.

While the money order involved in each 'case is sufficiently described in the first count in each bill of indictment, the second count in each bill refers only to “a certain false, forged and counterfeited money order is as follows, that is to say: And did present and cash said money order. . . . ” No further description of the particular “counterfeited money order” which defendant is charged with having uttered is contained in the second count in either bill. One may speculate that the reference to “said money order” was intended to refer to the particular money order as…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. State v. NugentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  2. State v. StokesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1968
  3. State v. McKoySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1965
  4. State v. AbleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971
  5. State v. HackneyCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Allison v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma · 1983
  2. State v. MosesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  3. State v. RussellCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API