State v. Scott

84 S.E.2d 654, 241 N.C. 178, 1954 N.C. LEXIS 567

Opinion

Barnhill, C. J.

The bill of indictment fails to meet the test set forth in S. v. Sumner, 232 N.C. 386, 61 S.E. 2d 84, and other decisions of like import. Tbe allegations in a bill of indictment must particularize tbe crime charged and be sufficiently explicit to protect tbe defendant against a subsequent prosecution for tbe same offense. Tbis tbe bill of indictment appearing in tbis record fails to do. S. v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414, 38 S.E. 2d 166; S. v. Cochran, 230 N.C. 523, 53 S.E. 2d 663.

While a motion to quash is tbe most appropriate method of raising tbe question whether tbe bill of indictment charges tbe commission of any criminal offense, motion in arrest of judgment may be used to tbe same end. S. v. Cochran, supra.

S. v. Raynor, 235 N.C. 184, 69 S.E. 2d 155, and S. v. Thorne, 238 N.C. 392, 78 S.E. 2d 140, are directly in point. What is said in tbe opinions in those cases is controlling here.

Tbe defendant is entitled to bis discharge. To that end tbe judgment entered in the court below is arrested.

Reversed.