Legal Opinion

State v. Mayo

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 25, 1966No. 2PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtPless, J.

Bills of indictment may be quashed for want of jurisdiction, S. v. Sloan, 238 N.C. 547, 78 S.E. 2d 312, irregularity in the selection of the Grand Jury, Miller v. State, 237 N.C. 29, 74 S.E. 2d 513, and for defects in the bill of indictment, S. v. Faulkner, 241 N.C. 609, 86 S.E. 2d 81.

A defect in a bill of indictment is not cured by the statute which enables the defendant to call for a bill of particulars . . . the particulars authorized are not a part of the indictment, S. v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 111 S.E. 2d 901. As stated in Joyce on Indictments, Sec. 326, p. 364:

“* * * If the indictment…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Miller v. StateSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  2. State v. ThorntonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1960
  3. State v. FaulknerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1955
  4. State v. SloanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. State v. ReavisCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973
  3. State v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1971
  4. State v. BassSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API