Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 99-7-23 (2024)
Motions to quash
✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
All objections to an indictment for any defect dehors the face thereof, presenting an issue to be tried by the court, shall be taken by motion to quash the indictment, and not otherwise, within the time allowed for demurrer, and with the right to amend, as provided in the last preceding section.
Codes, 1857, ch. 64, art. 268; 1871, § 2805; 1880, § 3012; 1892, § 1355; 1906, § 1427; Hemingway's 1917, § 1183; 1930, § 1207; 1942, § 2450.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases, 1974–2018 · leading case: State v. Berryhill, 703 So. 2d 250 (Miss. 1997).
State v. Berryhill, 703 So. 2d 250 (Miss. 1997). “[3] Miss. Code Ann. § 99-7-23 , also relied on by the State, is irrelevant.”
Lockett v. Puckett, 988 F. Supp. 1019 (S.D. Miss. 1997). “§ 99-7-21 (1994) 10 and Miss.Code Ann. § 99-7-23 (1994) 11 to support its theory that the Motion to Quash was untimely and could not be renewed after the jury was chosen and sworn.”
Smallwood v. State, 584 So. 2d 733 (Miss. 1991). “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-7-23 (1972). However, a limitation of time for objecting to qualifications of grand jurors has also been set out by legislative enactment, which states that once the grand jury has been sworn and empaneled, no objection can be raised except as to fraud.”
Kaleigh Ann Dartez v. State of Mississippi, 271 So. 3d 733 (Miss. Ct. App. 2018). “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-7-23 (Rev. 2015). Dartez argues her indictment failed to allege an essential element of the offense-a jurisdictional defect, see Qasoon , 232 So.”
Jackson v. State, 377 So. 2d 1060 (Miss. 1979). “Section 99-7-23. A suggestion of diminution of the record was granted and now appears as a part thereof.”
Southward v. State, 293 So. 2d 343 (Miss. 1974). “Miss. Code Ann. § 99-7-23 (1972). However, a limitation of time for objecting to qualifications of grand jurors has also been set out by legislative enactment, which states that once the grand jury has been sworn and empaneled, no objection can be raised except as to fraud.”
State of Mississippi v. Robert T. Ballard, No. 95-CT-00508-SCT (Miss. Mar. 7, 1995). “ANALYSIS DID THE TRIAL COURT ERR IN CONDUCTING A PRETRIAL HEARING TO TEST THE SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH GUILT, AND BY QUASHING THE INDICTMENT BASED ON DEFENDANT'S PRESENTATION OF HIS DEFENSE TO THE CHARGE, AN ACT WHICH IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE GRANTING OF A…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.