Legal Opinion
State v. Anderson
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Decided July 2, 1975No. 7523SC232PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ARNOLD, Judge.
Defendant initially contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a bill of particulars. As explained in State v. Cameron, 283 N.C. 191, 194, 195 S.E. 2d 481, 483 (1973) :
“G.S. 15-143 provides that when further information not required to be set out in the bill of indictment is desirable for the better defense of the accused, the court upon motion may in its discretion require the solicitor to furnish a bill of particulars. The function of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant- of the nature of the evidence which the State proposes to offer. State v.…
2Cases cited17 opinions
- State v. OvermanSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. DavisSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
- State v. CameronSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1973
- State v. PorthSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
- State v. SpenceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1967
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- North Carolina State Bar v. DuMontCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1981
- State v. JordanCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998