State v. Tessnear
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
WiNBORNE, C.J.:
At the outset defendant contends and urges that the trial court erred in denying his motion to quash the bill of indictment, and in arrest of judgment, for that the bill contains no definite reference to the time the alleged crime was committed. In this connection, while it is true that the bill of indictment here contains no such date, this Court has uniformly held that when time is not of the essence of the offense leaving out the date does not make it defective. See S. v. Peters, 107 N.C. 876, 12 S.E. 74; S. v. Francis, 157 N.C. 612, 72 S.E. 1041; S. v. Andrews, 246 N.C.…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- State v. HollandSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1951
- State v. . ToddSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
- State v. . PetersSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1890
- State v. BradySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- State v. CooperSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- State v. PriceSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1984
- State v. EfflerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1983
- State v. HicksSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1987
- State v. OrrSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.