Legal Opinion

State v. Reavis

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided September 26, 1973No. 7322SC638PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

■ Defendant first assigns as error the denial of his motion to quash the bill of indictment. A motion to quash, inter alia, challenges the sufficiency of the bill of indictment to charge an offense. State v. Mayo, 267 N.C. 415, 148 S.E. 2d 257; State v. Faulkner, 241 N.C. 609, 86 S.E. 2d 81. The requirements for a sufficient bill of indictment are as follows: (1) The offense is charged in a plain, intelligible, and explicit manner; (2) The offense is charged properly so as to avoid the possibility of double jeopardy; and (3) There is such certainty in the statement of the…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. State v. SparrowSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1970
  2. State v. GreerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
  3. State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1954
  4. State v. MOORE, IISupreme Court of North Carolina · 1964
  5. State v. CuthrellSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951

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

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Evanson v. StateWyoming Supreme Court · 1976
  2. In re S.R.S.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  3. State v. JonesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1993
  4. State v. ScottCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2002
  5. Burgess v. GriffinDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina · 1984

7 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