State v. Tart

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals holding that the State's remarks during its closing argument in this criminal case did not entitle Defendant to a new trial but reversed the court of appeals' determination that a short-form indictment insufficiently charged attempted first-degree murder, holding that the indictment was sufficient to vest the trial court with subject-matter jurisdiction to try Defendant for attempted first-degree murder.At issue were whether the indictment was sufficient to vest the trial court with jurisdiction to try Defendant for attempted first-degree murder when the wording of the indictment did not precisely duplicate the language of the relevant statute and whether the State's characterizations during its closing argument were so grossly improper that the trial court should have intervened ex mero motu. The Supreme Court reinstated Defendant's conviction for attempted first-degree murder, holding (1) the use of the term "slay" instead of "murder" in an indictment that also includes an allegation of "malice aforethought" complies with constitutional and statutory requirements for valid murder offense indictments and serves its functional purposes with regard to both the defendant and the court; and (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to intervene ex mero motu during the State's closing argument. View "State v. Tart" on Justia Law