Legal Opinion

State v. Hill

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 20, 1976No. 7621SC417PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ARNOLD, Judge.

Defendant contends that the indictment upon which he was tried and convicted for uttering a forged check was fatally defective. He contends that an essential element of the crime of uttering a forged check, that it was uttered with intent to defraud, was not alleged, and that consequently the court lacked jurisdiction.

G.S. 14-120 provides:

“If any person, directly or indirectly, whether for the sake of gain or with intent to defraud or injure any other person, shall utter or publish any such false, forged or counterfeit bill, note, order, check or security. . . , or shall pass or…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. McBaneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  2. State v. McAllisterSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1975
  3. State v. FaulknerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. State v. ThompsonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  2. State v. GantCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  3. State v. BrownCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2011
  4. State v. HolmonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1978
  5. State v. WalstonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1984

6 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