Legal Opinion

Pierpont v. State

Ohio Court of Appeals

Decided June 18, 1934No. 641PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

By WILLIAMS, J.

The indictment follows the form prescribed by the statute, and the court properly overruled the demurrer.

The indictment, when it was returned, was signed and subscribed by Norman Evans as foreman of the grand jury, but he failed to write the words “A true bill” thereon above his signature.

Sec 13436-17 GC, provides:

“At least twelve of the grand jurors must concur in the finding of an indictment, and when so found, the foreman shall endorse on such indictment the words ‘a true bill' and subscribe his name as foreman.”

It appears that the bill of indictment was found and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. State v. KringSupreme Court of Missouri · 1877
  2. State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1897
  3. Gray v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
  4. Gray v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1924
  5. Blair v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1916

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. State v. BaylessOhio Supreme Court · 1976
  2. McDonald v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1937
  3. State v. SheppardOhio Court of Appeals · 1955
  4. Smith v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1946
  5. State v. McKayNevada Supreme Court · 1946

11 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