State v. Vestal
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
LAKE, Justice.
The defendant’s motion to quash raises the question of the sufficiency of the summons, or warrant, to charge the commission of a criminal offense. State v. Brewer, 258 N.C. 533, 129 S.E. 2d 262, 1 A.L.R. 3rd 1323, app. dism., 375 U.S. 9; State v. Walker, 249 N.C. 35, 105 S.E. 2d 101; State v. Glidden Co., 228 N.C. 664, 46 S.E. 2d 860. It is essential to jurisdiction that a criminal offense be charged in the warrant or indictment upon which the State brings the defendant to trial. State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 144 S.E. 2d 14. If the only charge therein is that the defendant…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- Connally v. General Construction Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Berman v. ParkerSupreme Court of the United States · 1954
- State v. BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- State v. . BallanceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by37 opinions
- A-S-P Associates v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- Kirby v. North Carolina Department of TransportationSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2016
- State v. JoynerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. JonesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
- State v. FredellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
32 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.