State v. Squires

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Squires

144 S.E.2d 49, 265 N.C. 388, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 993

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedSeptember 29, 1965

Docket166

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 144 S.E.2d 49 (State v. Squires) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Squires, 144 S.E.2d 49, 265 N.C. 388, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 993 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Pee Cueiam.

Upon arraignment, counsel questioned the mental capacity of the defendant to plead to the indictment and to conduct his defense. Pursuant to court order he was committed to Dorothea Dix Hospital for observation. At the end of the examination period the authorities certified the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial.

The record discloses: “On calling the case for trial the defendant, through counsel, Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., enters a plea of not guilty *389 and moves to quash the bill of indictment.” Disregarding the question whether the motion to quash was timely made (after plea) the reason assigned (hearsay testimony before the grand jury) was insufficient to invalidate the indictment. Costello v. U. S., 350 U.S. 359, 100 L. Ed. 397. The court, after inquiry, overruled defendant’s challenge to the competency of the prosecuting witness to testify. The court’s finding of competency was warranted by the showing made and hence is conclusive. State v. Levy, 200 N.C. 586, 158 S.E. 94.

The questions presented and argued here, as well as the face of the record, disclose that in the trial there was

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pee Cueiam.

Upon arraignment, counsel questioned the mental capacity of the defendant to plead to the indictment and to conduct his defense. Pursuant to court order he was committed to Dorothea Dix Hospital for observation. At the end of the examination period the authorities certified the defendant was mentally competent to stand trial.

The record discloses: “On calling the case for trial the defendant, through counsel, Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., enters a plea of not guilty *389 and moves to quash the bill of indictment.” Disregarding the question whether the motion to quash was timely made (after plea) the reason assigned (hearsay testimony before the grand jury) was insufficient to invalidate the indictment. Costello v. U. S., 350 U.S. 359, 100 L. Ed. 397. The court, after inquiry, overruled defendant’s challenge to the competency of the prosecuting witness to testify. The court’s finding of competency was warranted by the showing made and hence is conclusive. State v. Levy, 200 N.C. 586, 158 S.E. 94.

The questions presented and argued here, as well as the face of the record, disclose that in the trial there was

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 S.E.2d 49, 265 N.C. 388, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-squires-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack