Category: indictments

North Carolina Sticks with the Rule that Omitting an Element in an Indictment Deprives the Court of Jurisdiction – at Least for Now (January 14, 2019)


Shortly before Christmas, the state supreme court decided a littering case captioned State v. Rankin, __ N.C. __, __ S.E.2d __, 2018 WL 6714931 (Dec. 21, 2018). The majority ruled that because the indictment “failed to . . . allege all . . . elements of the offense . . . the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter a conviction . . . against defendant.” The rule that the omission of an element is a jurisdictional defect is long-standing law in North Carolina, but many other jurisdictions, including the federal courts, have abandoned it. Chief Justice Martin, in dissent, argued that North Carolina should follow suit. This post summarizes the North Carolina rule, explains the controversy in Rankin, discusses why other jurisdictions have left the rule behind, and considers whether the General Assembly might address the issue.

READ POST "North Carolina Sticks with the Rule that Omitting an Element in an Indictment Deprives the Court of Jurisdiction – at Least for Now (January 14, 2019)"

Is the NC Court of Appeals Lightening Up on Indictment Issues? (July 13, 2015)

Indictment issues are the bane of the prosecutor’s existence. The rules about how an offense must be alleged in the indictment are highly technical. And because the rules are neither intuitive nor entirely consistent across offenses, they are hard to keep straight. Not surprisingly indictment issues account for a lot of black ink in the appellate reporters. Just how much? In my Criminal Case Compendium, which catalogues all types of criminal cases decided since 2008, there are a full 26 pages of case annotations on indictment issue cases!

READ POST "Is the NC Court of Appeals Lightening Up on Indictment Issues? (July 13, 2015)"

What’s In a (Trade) Name? (July 7, 2015)

Today, the court of appeals reversed a defendant’s drug convictions because the indictments identified the controlled substances in question using terms that are widely used to describe the drugs, but that are neither the chemical names listed in the controlled substance schedules nor – according to the court – “trade names” for the drugs. Because more and more drug cases involve pharmaceuticals that have many names, it is worth reviewing the case.

READ POST "What’s In a (Trade) Name? (July 7, 2015)"

Offense Date for Habitual Felon Indictments (March 5, 2015)

A recent conversation reminded me about a question I’ve received several times over the years: On a habitual felon indictment, what should be listed as the offense date? The two main choices are (1) the date of the substantive felony with which the defendant is charged, and (2) the date of the last of the defendant’s previous convictions, i.e., the date that the defendant became a habitual felon.

READ POST "Offense Date for Habitual Felon Indictments (March 5, 2015)"