Title: State v. Mayo
Citation: 148 S.E.2d 257, 267 N.C. 415
Docket Number: 2
State: north-carolina
Issuer: north-carolina Supreme Court
Date: May 25, 1966

148 S.E.2d 257 (1966) 267 N.C. 415 STATE v. Ervin MAYO, Jr. No. 2. Supreme Court of North Carolina. May 25, 1966. *258 Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State. John A. Wilkinson, Washington, for defendant. PLESS, Justice. Bills of indictment may be quashed for want of jurisdiction, State v. Sloan, 238 N.C. 547, 78 S.E.2d 312, irregularity in the selection of the Grand Jury, Miller v. State, 237 N.C. 29, 74 S.E.2d 513, and for defects in the bill of indictment, State v. Faulkner, 241 N.C. 609, 86 S.E.2d 81. A defect in a bill of indictment is not cured by the statute which enables the defendant to call for a bill of particulars the particulars authorized are not a part of the indictment, State v. Thornton, 251 N.C. 658, 111 S.E.2d 901. As stated in Joyce on Indictments, Sec. 326, p. 364: Consequently, it was error to quash the first bill because of "the record and the indictment." We cannot agree that Judge Parker was "without power" to rule on the new bills solely because Judge Cowper had earlier ruled on a similar bill. An examination of the eight bills considered by Judge Parker discloses that they *259 did not cover precisely the same offenses as the first bill. Two of the later bills refer to dates previous to January 27, 1964 and the total amount of the monies allegedly embezzled in the eight later bills is $1260.20 rather than $1365.25. We find no North Carolina decision nor, indeed, one from any jurisdiction upon the exact question here presented except in some instances in which a foreign statute is being construed. The defendant in his brief gives no citations to sustain his position. "The law of the case" contemplates an irrevocable determination or a final ruling on appeal and is quite different from res judicata. As stated in 21 C.J.S. Courts § 195a., p. 331: Since the present bills have not been considered upon their merits, the cause is remanded for that purpose, unaffected by the previous action of the court, and to that end Judge Parker's ruling is hereby Reversed. PARKER, C. J., and BOBBITT, J., concur in result. MOORE, J., not sitting.