§62-2-10. Defects not invalidating indictment.
No indictment or other accusation shall be quashed or deemed invalid for omitting to set forth that it is upon the oaths of the jurors, or upon their oaths and affirmation; or for the insertion of the words "upon their oath," instead of "upon their oaths"; or for not in terms alleging that the offense was committed "within the jurisdiction of the court," when the averments show that the case is one of which the court has jurisdiction; or for the omission or misstatement of the title, occupation, estate or degree of the accused, or of the name or place of his residence; or for omitting the words "with force and arms," or the statement of any particular kind of force and arms; or for omitting to state, or stating imperfectly, the time at which the offense was committed, when time is not of the essence of the offense; or for failing to allege the value of an instrument which caused death, or to allege that it was of no value; or for omitting to charge the offense to be "against the form of the statute," or statutes; or for the omission or insertion of any other words of mere form or surplusage. Nor shall it be abated for any misnomer of the accused; but the court may, in case of misnomer appearing before or in the course of a trial, forthwith cause the indictment or accusation to be amended according to the fact.
Notes of Decisions
State Ex Rel. State v. Reed, 514 S.E.2d 171 (W. Va. 1999).
· cites it 10× “DISCUSSION In the instant proceeding the prosecutor concedes that the evidence adduced at trial did not place the commission of the crimes within the time period stated in the indictment. Notwithstanding such evidence, the prosecutor asserts that time is not an element of the…”
State v. David D. W., 588 S.E.2d 156 (W. Va. 2003).
· cites it 4× “He also asserts that it would be impossible for him to plead his convictions as a bar to a later prosecution, since the State could draft a new indictment alleging that the same offenses occurred on one of the days of the month not alleged in the previous indictment.”
State ex rel. Thompson v. Ballard, 728 S.E.2d 147 (W. Va. 2012).
· cites it 4× “” Further, the circuit court found that W. Va. Code § 62-2-10 (1923) states, in pertinent part: No indictment or other accusation shall be quashed or deemed invalid .”
State v. Miller, 466 S.E.2d 507 (W. Va. 1995).
“” *664 Because time is not an essential element of the charged offenses, the alleged variances did not substantially alter the offenses charged, the defense was not prejudiced by any alleged variances, and the defendant was not exposed to the danger of being put in jeopardy to…”
State of West Virginia v. John Henry Hoyle, 836 S.E.2d 817 (W. Va. 2019).
· cites it 3× “Runyon, we invalidated an indictment where the date of the crime was so far in the future that it had not yet come to pass.”
State of West Virginia v. Erin S.T., No. 15-1195 (W. Va. Nov. 18, 2016).
“With regard to petitioner’s argument that the indictment was deficient because it lacked specific or definitive dates on which the alleged offenses purportedly occurred, we likewise find no error.”
John J. v. Dennis Dingess, Warden, No. 16-0445 (W. Va. Apr. 7, 2017).
“As for the six-year window, West Virginia Code § 62-2-10 provides that an indictment will not be deemed invalid “for omitting to state, or stating imperfectly, the time at which the offense was committed, when time is not of the essence of the offense[.”
Mitchell M. v. David Ballard, Warden, No. 16-0885 (W. Va. Aug. 25, 2017).
“Moreover, West Virginia Code § 62-2-10 provides that “[n]o indictment or other accusation shall be quashed or deemed invalid .”
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.