Did State v. Singleton Bring a Sea Change in the Law of Indictments?

The North Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Singleton, No. 318PA22, __ N.C. __ (2024), brings about a transformation of North Carolina indictment law. The case “ends [a] centuries old saga” in deciding that the “common law jurisdictional indictment rule” is “no longer the law in this State.” Slip. op. 3, 40. My colleague, Joe Hyde, delved into the analysis and history set forth in the 84-page opinion here. This post will elaborate on the potential consequences for practitioners. As a new lawyer learning about the concept of jurisdictional indictment errors, I thought of the elements set forth in an indictment as links in a chain. If one of the links was missing or broken, the chain failed to hold, and the pleading was defective. To use another analogy, if the State failed to assert facts supporting each element of the charge, the pleading could not hold water, and the court lacked authority to impose a judgment. See State v. Rankin, 371 N.C. 885 (2018). However, after Singleton, these analogies are no longer applicable. At its core, Singleton establishes that an alleged indictment defect should be analyzed by considering whether the defendant’s statutory rights or constitutional due process and notice rights were violated. It will still be necessary to determine whether the State violated G.S. 15A-924(a)(5) by failing to assert facts supporting each essential element of the charge. But because the question is no longer jurisdictional in nature (except where the indictment “wholly fails to allege a crime”), prejudice must [...]