#North carolina bill of particulars full
#North carolina bill of particulars trial

15A-924(a)(4) (“Error as to a date or its omission is not ground for dismissal of the charges or for reversal of a conviction if time was not of the essence with respect to the charge and the error or omission did not mislead the defendant to his prejudice.”) G.S. 370 (1984) (variance between the actual date of the offense and the date alleged in rape indictment was not fatal, since charging statute expressly excused the failure to state an exact date).Ī defendant who objects to the lack of specificity in the date of a pleading must demonstrate that the vagueness impaired his or her defense.

#North carolina bill of particulars trial

105 (2010) (no fatal variance where burglary indictment alleged defendant broke and entered house located at 407 Ward’s Branch Road, Sugar Grove Watauga County, but evidence at trial showed house number was 317) see also State v. 755 (1966) (per curiam) (pleading alleging breaking and entering was fatally defective where it did not identify building with particularity) but see State v. Date, Time and Place of OffenseĪ pleading must allege the date, time and place of an offense with enough specificity to enable the defendant to defend against the charge. 179 (2016) (a citation is sufficient if it identifies the offense, even if elements are missing). 548 (2018) ('the criminal pleading contents of a citation are designed and allowed to be more relaxed than those of other criminal charging instruments') State v.

There is an exception to this rule for citations, which are generally valid even if they fail to allege every element, as long as they reasonably identify the crime charged.

#North carolina bill of particulars full

783 (2006) (indictment fatally flawed where it did not include the full name of controlled substance substance listed as “methylenedioxymethamphetamine” but did not include “3,4” as listed in statute). 37 (2010) (indictment identifying controlled substance as “benzodiazepines, which is included in Schedule IV of the North Carolina Controlled Substances Act” was fatally defective since benzodiazepines were not listed in Schedule IV) State v. 220 (2011) (warrant could not support a conviction for attack by a dangerous dog, since it failed included the element of medical treatment cost) State v. 65 (2012) (indictment charging failing to notify sheriff’s office of change of address by a registered sex offender was defective where it failed to allege that defendant was a person required to register) State v. If the pleading fails to allege an essential element, it is defective and subject to dismissal. 262 (1955) (indictment that fails to allege every element of crime strips superior court of jurisdiction over case). 633, 639 (1977) (both indictments and warrants must “allege lucidly and accurately all the essential elements of the offense endeavored to be charged”) State v. Elements of the OffenseĮxcept for those crimes where a short-form indictment is statutorily permitted, both misdemeanor and felony pleadings must state all of the essential elements of the crime. For templates with recommended language to use when charging specific criminal offenses, please see the related entry on Arrest Warrant and Indictment Forms.