Within the Four Corners: Scouring Indictments for Missing Elements in State v. Jackson and State v. Coffey.

Two recent opinions from the Court of Appeals illustrate the remarkable controversy currently underway over the specificity required of indictments.  In State v. Coffey, No. COA22-883, 2024 WL 675881 (N.C. Ct. App. Feb. 20, 2024), our Court of Appeals ruled an indictment for felony obstruction of justice was facially defective for failure to allege an essential element of the offense: the purpose of hindering or impeding a judicial or official proceeding or investigation.  By contrast, in State v. Jackson, No. COA22-280, 2024 WL 925480 (N.C. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 2024), our Court of Appeals ruled an indictment for habitual misdemeanor assault was sufficient though it failed explicitly to allege an element: causing physical injury.  This post attempts to reconcile the divergent analytical approaches taken in Coffey and Jackson. Basic Principles The common law rule is that an indictment must allege all the essential elements of the offense charged.  State v. Oldroyd, 380 N.C. 613, 617, 869 S.E.2d 193, 197 (2022).  By statute, an indictment must contain a plain and concise factual statement in each count that asserts facts supporting every element of the offense.  N.C.G.S. § 15A-924(a)(5).  The extent to which this statute codifies the common law rule has been a matter of some debate.  As noted in a prior post, recent opinions have been more willing to uphold indictments where the elements can be inferred from the facts alleged.  In any event, the validity of an indictment is determined without reference to extrinsic evidence.  State v. White, 372 N.C. 248, [...]