Burks v. Davies

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an indictment was sufficient to protect the defendant against another prosecution for the same conduct where it, among other things, specified the conduct being charged and named the date on which the conduct took place
• indictment sufficient to protect against double jeopardy when it specified the conduct being charged, identified the victim, and named the date on which the conduct took place
• defendant's demurrer was not an improper \speaking demurrer\ because his challenge to the indictment could be determined \without reaching matters outside the four corners of the indictment\
• defendant’s demurrer was not an improper “speaking demurrer” because his challenge to the indictment could be determined “without reaching matters outside the four corners of the indictment”
• “to comport with constitutional due process an indictment charging a defendant with a criminal offense must. . . contain the essential elements of the crimes and apprise a defendant of what he must be prepared to meet at trial” (emphasis supplied)
• “[T]o comport with constitutional due process an indictment charging a defendant with a criminal offense must satisfy two criteria: (1) it must contain the essential elements of the crimes and apprise a defendant of what he must be prepared to meet at trial; and (2

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).