Legal Opinion

State v. Cunningham

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 21, 1977No. 7712SC244PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

MORRIS, Judge.

The defendant’s first assignment of error is directed to the court’s failure to quash the warrants upon defendant’s arraignment. At his trial, defendant waived counsel and represented himself. No motion to quash was made, but on appeal defendant takes the position that the court should have, ex mero mo tu, quashed the warrants. We know of no statute or case law which requires a judge to so rule. Defendant concedes that he can find none. Of course, if the warrant or indictment does not sufficiently charge an offense, this Court, ex mero mo tu, may arrest judgment. State v.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. State v. TaylorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  2. State v. MobleySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  3. State v. SummrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  4. Investment Properties of Asheville, Inc. v. AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1972
  5. State v. WilsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1977

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

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. State v. MatherCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2012
  2. Cranford v. KluttzDistrict Court, M.D. North Carolina · 2017

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

Powered by the Exa API