Faulks v. State

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that appellant failed to preserve his complaint that the indictment was duplicitous by failing to file a written motion to quash, even though an oral motion to quash was made immediately prior to trial
• concluding that appellant failed to preserve his complaint that the indictment was duplicitous by failing to file a written motion to quash, even though an oral motion to quash was made immediately prior to trial
• holding oral motion to quash preserves nothing for review
• “[A]n oral motion to quash or to dismiss the indictment preserve[s] nothing for review.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).