§62-9-1. General form of indictments.
All indictments in this state, if procured, found and returned in all other respects as provided by law, shall be sufficient if in the following form:
State of West Virginia, County of ..............., to wit:
The grand jurors of the State of West Virginia, in and for the body of the county of .............., upon their oaths present that A............., on the ......... day of ........., 19 ....., in the said county of ..............., did unlawfully (or unlawfully and feloniously, as the case may be) (here describe the offense in the language, purport or tenor of the statute as near as may be), against the peace and dignity of the state.
Found upon the testimony of ................, duly sworn in open court to testify the truth and sent before the grand jury this the .......... day of ..........., 19 .....
(Signed)
prosecuting attorney.
Said indictment shall have legibly indorsed on the reverse side thereof the words "State of West Virginia versus ...........Indictment for a ................ (Felony or Misdemeanor, as the case may be).
Foreman of the Grand Jury
Attest:, prosecuting attorney of
........................, county, West Virginia."
Of such indictment a true and complete record shall be made and kept by the clerk of the court in which the indictment is found and returned, and it shall be necessary to state thereon whether such indictment be for a felony or a misdemeanor.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
17
cases, 1977–2018 · leading case:
Louk v. Cormier, 622 S.E.2d 788 (W. Va. 2005).
Louk v. Cormier, 622 S.E.2d 788 (W. Va. 2005).
· cites it 4× “' This statute refers to a situation under which a judge might be disqualified, and therefore it is in conflict with and superseded by Trial Court Rule XVII, which addresses the disqualification and temporary assignment of judges."); State v.”
State ex rel. R.L. v. Bedell, 452 S.E.2d 893 (W. Va. 1994).
· cites it 2× “Instead of holding that the prosecuting attorney's attestation is not needed in this case, I believe a better approach, and one consistent with West Virginia precedent, is to rely on our prior cases [1] holding that such attestation must appear on the indictment *898 pursuant to…”
State v. Davis, 357 S.E.2d 769 (W. Va. 1987).
· cites it 3× “The defendant’s motion to dismiss, made a month before trial, was predicated on the fact that the indorsement of the grand jury foreman appeared on the face of the indictment rather than on the reverse.”
State v. Wallace, 517 S.E.2d 20 (W. Va. 1999).
· cites it 2× “7(c)(1) supersedes the provisions of W. Va.Code § 62-9-1 (1931), to the extent that the statute requires the indorsement of the grand jury foreman and attestation of the prosecutor on the reverse side of the indictment), overruled on other grounds, State ex rel.”
State v. Goodnight, 287 S.E.2d 504 (W. Va. 1982).
“dollars, of the money, goods, effects and property of B .”
State ex rel. Miller v. Smith, 285 S.E.2d 500 (W. Va. 1981).
· cites it 2× “2d 624 (1981): “As criminal offenses are offenses against the State which must be prosecuted in the name of the State, W.Va. Code § 62-9-1 (1977 Replacement Vol.”
State v. Cunningham, 236 S.E.2d 459 (W. Va. 1977).
· cites it 4× “W.Va.Code, 62-9-1. I recognize that State ex rel.”
State v. Miller, 476 S.E.2d 535 (W. Va. 1996).
“Code, 62-9-3, states: "An indictment for murder shall be sufficient if it be in form, tenor or effect as follows (after following the form in section one [§ 62-9-1]): "That A., on the.day of .. nineteen .”
State ex rel. Day v. Silver, 556 S.E.2d 820 (W. Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Code § 62-9-10 (1931) contains the form indictment for larceny and reads as follows: An indictment for larceny shall be sufficient if it be in form, tenor or effect as follows (after following the form in section one [§ 62-9-1]): That A ., on the .day of., nineteen .”
Harman v. Frye, 425 S.E.2d 566 (W. Va. 1992).
· cites it 2× “2d at 631 , the Court stated: ‘As criminal offenses are offenses against the State which must be prosecuted in the name of the State, W.Va. Code § 62-9-1 (1977 Replacement Vol.”
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.