Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

State v. Huntley

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

Decided March 6, 1984Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partScolnik, Justice

I concur with the majority as to Count I of the indictment, but I must dissent as to Count II.

Rule 7(c) of the Maine Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that an “indictment or ... information shall be a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” It was adopted in order to simplify criminal pleading, to reduce the ornate complexity of pleading at common law. M.R.Crim.P. 7 reporter’s notes. There is no mechanical test for determining the sufficiency of an indictment, but our appraisal must be governed by practical rather than…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. State v. CrockerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  2. State v. PierceSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1981
  3. State v. CharetteSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1963
  4. State v. WarnerSupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1967
  5. T. Green Duke, Doyle Willbanks, Edwin J. Waters, Curtis H. Fordham, Wesley Fiveash and Jule Rhoden v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1956

12 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