State v. Nesmith
Oregon Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtBrown, J.
The defendant asserts that the indictment does not state facts sufficient to constitute a crime.
It is a general rule that an indictment is sufficient when it alleges acts constituting the crime charged in the words of the statute defining it. This is essentially true when the statute contains all the elements of the offense: State v. Bailey, 115 Or. 428 (236 P. 1053). Under Oregon Code 1930, § 13-714, an indictment is sufficient when it can be understood therefrom—
“1. That it is entitled in a court having authority to receive it * * *;
“2. That it was found by a grand jury of the county in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. BaileyOregon Supreme Court · 1925
- State v. KnightenOregon Supreme Court · 1901
- Sutton v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1893
- State v. GauthierOregon Supreme Court · 1925
- People v. Ah YekCalifornia Supreme Court · 1866
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. JimCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973
- Antoine v. TaylorOregon Supreme Court · 2021
- State v. IversonOregon Supreme Court · 1962
- State v. ColeOregon Supreme Court · 1966
- State v. BellCourt of Appeals of Oregon · 1973