Legal Opinion

State v. McAllister

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided October 16, 1974No. 7414SC661Published

1Opinion of the Court

BRITT, Judge.

By one of his assignments of error, defendant challenges the sufficiency of the bills of indictment. He contends that while the indictments set out the full wording of the checks and endorsements, they do not specify the words on the checks which the State contends were forged. Defendant relies principally on the following cases: State v. Coleman, 253 N.C. 799, 117 S.E. 2d 742 (1961) ; State v. Moffitt, 9 N.C. App. 694, 177 S.E. 2d 324 (1970), cert. denied 281 N.C. 626, 190 S.E. 2d 472 (1972); State v. Cross, 5 N.C. App. 217, 167 S.E. 2d 868 (1969). We think the cited cases are…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. State v. ColemanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1961
  2. State v. MoffittCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1970
  3. State v. CrossCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API