North Carolina Sticks with the Rule that Omitting an Element in an Indictment Deprives the Court of Jurisdiction – at Least for Now

Shortly before Christmas, the state supreme court decided a littering case captioned State v. Rankin, __ N.C. __, __ S.E.2d __, 2018 WL 6714931 (Dec. 21, 2018). The majority ruled that because the indictment “failed to . . . allege all . . . elements of the offense . . . the trial court had no jurisdiction to enter a conviction . . . against defendant.” The rule that the omission of an element is a jurisdictional defect is long-standing law in North Carolina, but many other jurisdictions, including the federal courts, have abandoned it. Chief Justice Martin, in dissent, argued that North Carolina should follow suit. This post summarizes the North Carolina rule, explains the controversy in Rankin, discusses why other jurisdictions have left the rule behind, and considers whether the General Assembly might address the issue. The North Carolina rule. The Chief Justice’s opinion in Rankin describes the rule that the omission of an element is a jurisdictional defect as being a “common law rule” with a lineage tracing back to English law. It is certainly a long-standing rule, dating at least to State v. Morgan, 226 N.C. 414 (1946). In that case, the court considered an indictment purporting to charge a defendant with nonsupport of a child, but neglecting to allege that the defendant’s failure to support was willful. The court stated: It is a universal rule that no indictment, whether at common law or under a statute, can be good if it does not accurately and clearly [...]