explaining that when charged with official oppression by mistreatment, the defendant must have known that the mistreatment alleged in the indictment was in fact unlawful in that it was either criminal or tortious
How later courts described this case
- explaining that when charged with official oppression by mistreatment, the defendant must have known that the mistreatment alleged in the indictment was in fact unlawful in that it was either criminal or tortious
- explaining that when charged with official oppression by mistreatment, the defendant must have known the mistreatment alleged in the indictment was in fact unlawful in that it was either criminal or tortious
- holding that an indictment which tracks the language of a criminal statute is sufficient to allege an offense and to provide a defendant with notice of the charged offense
- holding that generally, an indictment that tracks statutory language proscribing certain conduct is sufficient to charge criminal offense
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
OVERSTREET, Judge,
dissents with the following note:
I dissent to the majority opinion because I believe the Court of Appeals correctly decided all issues. The proper disposition is to acknowledge that this matter was improvidently granted.
MEYERS, J., not participating.