Case Name: STATE v. ROBAH LEE SMITH
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1964-04-08
Citations: 261 N.C. 613
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. ROBAH LEE SMITH.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 261
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
STATE v. ROBAH LEE SMITH.
(Filed 8 April, 1964.)
Indictment and Warrant § 5—
The failure of the indictment to show by cheek marks or endorsement on its back that witnesses appeared before the grand jury is not grounds for quashal.
Appeal by defendant from Gambill, J., September, 1963 Session, Yadicin Superior Court.
Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging that the defendant on April 28, 1962, did operate a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of intoxicating liquors. Upon arraignment, and before plea, the defendant moved to quash upon the ground the indictment did not by check mark or otherwise indicate that any witness was sworn and examined by the grand jury. On the back of the indictment appeared this legend:
“Witnesses: J. R. Roupe, Harold Shore, W. E. Wishon. Those marked — sworn by the undersigned Foreman, and examined before the Grand Jury; and this bill found (x) A True Bill, /s/ H. B. Shore, Foreman Grand Jury.”
A check mark did not appear opposite the name of either witness.
The Solicitor for the State offered the evidence of J. R. Roupe who testified he was called as a witness and testified before the Grand Jury at the September Term, 1962, “in the case of State v. Robah Lee Smith, on a charge of operating a motor vehicle upon the public highways while under the influence of some intoxicating liquors . . .”
The court overruled the motion to quash. A jury trial resulted in a verdict of guilty. From the judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.
T. W. Bruton, Attorney General, James F. Bullock, Assistant Attorney General for the State..
Scott, Folger, Ellington ■& Webster by Alfred J. Ellington for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The order of the Superior Court holding the indictment valid and overruling the motion to quash is fully sustained by many decisions of this Court, among them, State v. Lancaster, 210 N.C. 584, 187 S.E. 802.
No error.