{ "id": 3793573, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL JONES", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jones", "decision_date": "2005-08-19", "docket_number": "No. 389PA04", "first_page": "832", "last_page": "839", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "359 N.C. 832" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "598 S.E.2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2004, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. App. 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8999083 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/165/0540-01" ] }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1018", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9679042, 9678662, 9678761, 9678795, 9678864, 9678834, 9678739, 9678962, 9678903, 9678645, 9678999, 9678940, 9678686, 9678719 ], "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1018-14", "/us/531/1018-02", "/us/531/1018-06", "/us/531/1018-07", "/us/531/1018-09", "/us/531/1018-08", "/us/531/1018-05", "/us/531/1018-12", "/us/531/1018-10", "/us/531/1018-01", "/us/531/1018-13", "/us/531/1018-11", "/us/531/1018-03", "/us/531/1018-04" ] }, { "cite": "614 S.E.2d 504", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12633157 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "512" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/614/0504-01" ] }, { "cite": "592 S.E.2d 696", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12631144, 12631145, 12631143 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/592/0696-01", "/se2d/592/0696-02", "/se2d/592/0696-03" ] }, { "cite": "358 N.C. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12631142, 12631143, 12631144, 12631145, 12631146, 12631147, 12631149 ], "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/592/0694-02", "/se2d/592/0696-03", "/se2d/592/0696-01", "/se2d/592/0696-02", "/se2d/592/0697-01", "/se2d/592/0698-02", "/se2d/592/0699-01" ] }, { "cite": "548 S.E.2d 712", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "731", "parenthetical": "holding that the state must allege a firearm enhancement in an indictment" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135574 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "597-98", "parenthetical": "holding that the state must allege a firearm enhancement in an indictment" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "337 S.E.2d 786", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "792-93", "parenthetical": "state constitution" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "315 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4715685 ], "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12-14", "parenthetical": "state constitution" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/315/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "471 S.E.2d 624", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "628", "parenthetical": "federal constitution" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "343 N.C. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 798869 ], "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "472", "parenthetical": "federal constitution" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/343/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 498", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "528 S.E.2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "343" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155877 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "508" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 L. Ed. 2d 797", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "531 U.S. 1130", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9725312, 9726080, 9725538, 9725636, 9725125, 9726440, 9726185, 9725963, 9725742, 9726553, 9726323, 9725849, 9725435, 9725213 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/531/1130-03", "/us/531/1130-10", "/us/531/1130-05", "/us/531/1130-06", "/us/531/1130-01", "/us/531/1130-13", "/us/531/1130-11", "/us/531/1130-09", "/us/531/1130-07", "/us/531/1130-14", "/us/531/1130-12", "/us/531/1130-08", "/us/531/1130-04", "/us/531/1130-02" ] }, { "cite": "531 S.E.2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "436-38", "parenthetical": "federal and state constitutions" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "352 N.C. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 685078 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "173-75", "parenthetical": "federal and state constitutions" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/352/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "526 U.S. 227", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11133049 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/526/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "530 U.S. 466", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 9413911 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/530/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "536 U.S. 584", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1254507 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/536/0584-01" ] }, { "cite": "241 S.E.2d 324", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "329" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570860 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "68" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 S.E.2d 379", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "382" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 370", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4683223 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "375-76" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0370-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S.E.2d 880", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "upholding the defendant's conviction for attempted second-degree burglary in a prosecution for burglary" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629576 ], "year": 1949, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "upholding the defendant's conviction for attempted second-degree burglary in a prosecution for burglary" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0272-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E.2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "547" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604316 ], "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "159" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0156-01" ] }, { "cite": "105 S.E.2d 513", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "516" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "249 N.C. 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610635, 8610540 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "139" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/249/0134-02", "/nc/249/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "261 S.E.2d 849", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "854" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574165 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "180-81" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "388 S.E.2d 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "137" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "326 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 5307411 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/326/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "547 S.E.2d 817", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "353 N.C. 384", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 135632, 135690, 135877, 135600 ], "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/353/0384-03", "/nc/353/0384-01", "/nc/353/0384-04", "/nc/353/0384-02" ] }, { "cite": "539 S.E.2d 44", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "50-51", "parenthetical": "upholding indictment alleging \"defendant. .. unlawfully, willfully and feloniously and of malice aforethought did attempt to kill and murder [the victim]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N.C. App. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9439431 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "41", "parenthetical": "upholding indictment alleging \"defendant. .. unlawfully, willfully and feloniously and of malice aforethought did attempt to kill and murder [the victim]\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/141/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "578 S.E.2d 597", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "578 S.E.2d 596", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 691", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511179, 1511403, 1511277, 1511540, 1511320 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0691-04", "/nc/356/0691-03", "/nc/356/0691-05", "/nc/356/0691-02", "/nc/356/0691-01" ] }, { "cite": "571 S.E.2d 592", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "599" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N.C. App. 630", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251098 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "640" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/153/0630-01" ] }, { "cite": "572 S.E.2d 798", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "803" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. App. 553", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251181 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "559-60" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/154/0553-01" ] }, { "cite": "527 S.E.2d 45", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "46" }, { "page": "46-47" }, { "page": "48" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "351 N.C. 448", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1155934 ], "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "448" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/351/0448-01" ] }, { "cite": "320 S.E.2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "6", "parenthetical": "stating that \"an indictment drawn in conformity with section 15-144 ... is sufficient in law to charge first degree murder and all lesser included offenses\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "311 N.C. 603", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4685063 ], "year": 1984, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "609-10", "parenthetical": "stating that \"an indictment drawn in conformity with section 15-144 ... is sufficient in law to charge first degree murder and all lesser included offenses\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/311/0603-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 L. Ed. 2d 702", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "539 U.S. 985", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8940409, 8940346, 8940372, 8940287 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/539/0985-04", "/us/539/0985-02", "/us/539/0985-03", "/us/539/0985-01" ] }, { "cite": "582 S.E.2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 5, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "600-02", "parenthetical": "tracing the legislative history of the short-form indictment" }, { "page": "604-05", "parenthetical": "noting that \"this Court has consistently and unequivocally upheld short-form murder indictments as valid under both the United States and the North Carolina Constitutions\"" }, { "page": "599-607" }, { "page": "603" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "357 N.C. 257", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 491439 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "268-70", "parenthetical": "tracing the legislative history of the short-form indictment" }, { "page": "265-78" }, { "page": "273" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/357/0257-01" ] }, { "cite": "598 S.E.2d 694", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "695" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 N.C. App. 540", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8999083 ], "year": 2004, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "541" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/165/0540-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 787, "char_count": 18041, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.608445239562134e-07, "percentile": 0.8880759071281762 }, "sha256": "4524c71f4c26f2e3c6197380b88b8cd08778bf1d283ec6f8d5056238816a7df7", "simhash": "1:ad499c6e34602352", "word_count": 2813 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:11:02.499353+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL JONES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Justice.\nThis appeal presents the issue of whether N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 \u2022authorizes the use of a short-form indictment to charge attempted first-degree murder.\nEvidence presented at trial tended to show that on 30 June 2000, defendant Christopher Nathaniel Jones had an argument with his coworker, Romario Robinson, at their Pineville, North Carolina workplace, Buffalo Tire. After an angry exchange of words, Robinson grabbed a baseball bat, raised it into the air, and directed it towards defendant. Jonathan Lucas, a manager at Buffalo Tire, overheard the argument and arrived just in time to intercept and grab the baseball bat as Robinson swung it downward. Defendant then left the building, retrieved a firearm from his car, reentered the building, chased down Robinson, and shot him twice.\nOn 17 July 2000, a Mecklenburg County grand jury indicted defendant for assault by pointing a gun and assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The grand jury also indicted defendant for attempted murder, the indictment stating that defendant \u201cdid unlawfully, wilfully, and feloniously and of malice aforethought attempt to kill and murder Romario Robinson.\u201d On 8 August 2001, the jury found defendant guilty of all three offenses, and the trial court entered judgments accordingly. Defendant gave notice of appeal in open court.\nIn the Court of Appeals, defendant argued that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144, which authorizes use of the short-form murder indictment, did not support defendant\u2019s conviction for attempted murder. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant\u2019s argument, explaining that \u201c[b]ecause the indictment is constitutional and sufficient for murder, it will support a conviction for attempted murder.\u201d State v. Jones, 165 N.C. App. 540, 541, 598 S.E.2d 694, 695 (2004). Nonetheless, the Court vacated defendant\u2019s conviction, reasoning that the indictment charged the offense of \u201cattempted common law murder,\u201d which is \u201cnot recognized by our General Statutes.\u201d Id.\nIn 1887, the General Assembly enacted N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144, which authorizes the use of a short-form indictment for homicide crimes. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 (2003). See generally State v. Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 268-70, 582 S.E.2d 593, 600-02 (2003) (tracing the legislative history of the short-form indictment), cert. denied, 539 U.S. 985, 156 L. Ed. 2d 702 (2003). We have previously upheld the use of the short-form murder indictment in the face of both constitutional and statutory challenges. See, e.g., id. at 274, 582 S.E.2d at 604-05 (noting that \u201cthis Court has consistently and unequivocally upheld short-form murder indictments as valid under both the United States and the North Carolina Constitutions\u201d); State v. King, 311 N.C. 603, 609-10, 320 S.E.2d 1, 6 (1984) (stating that \u201can indictment drawn in conformity with section 15-144 ... is sufficient in law to charge first degree murder and all lesser included offenses\u201d).\nDefendant raises two challenges to the indictment at issue. First, defendant contends that this indictment is statutorily defective. Defendant notes that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 does not include specific language authorizing a short-form indictment for attempted murder. Defendant compares this statute to the statutes authorizing short-form indictments for rape and sex offenses, which do include language expressly authorizing such indictments to support verdicts of \u201cattempted rape\u201d and \u201cattempt to commit a sex offense.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144.1 (2003); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144.2 (2003). Defendant contends that under the canon of construction \u201cexpressio unius est exclusio alterius,\u201d it logically follows that the General Assembly did not intend for the short-form indictment for murder to support a charge of attempted murder. We disagree.\nIn State v. Coble, a jury found the defendant guilty of attempted second-degree murder. 351 N.C. 448, 448, 527 S.E.2d 45, 46 (2000). This Court in Coble explained that \u201csecond-degree murder\u201d is a general intent crime requiring intent to commit the act resulting in death, whereas the crime of \u201cattempt\u201d is a specific intent crime requiring intent to commit the underlying offense. Id. at 449-50, 527 S.E.2d at 46-47. \u201cBecause specific intent to kill is not an element of second-degree murder,\u201d we concluded that \u201cthe crime of attempted second-degree murder is a logical impossibility under North Carolina law.\u201d Id. at 451, 527 S.E.2d at 48.0ne reasonable implication of Coble is that, when the short-form indictment in the instant case alleged that defendant \u201cdid . . . attempt to . . . murder,\u201d the indictment could only have meant attempted first-degree murder because North Carolina does not recognize a criminal offense denominated as attempted second-degree murder. Id. Accordingly, we reject the Court of Appeals\u2019 conclusion that the instant indictment charged the offense of \u201cattempted common law murder,\u201d an offense not recognized by our General Statutes.\nWe next address whether N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144, which authorizes the use of the short-form indictment to charge murder and manslaughter, also authorizes the use of the short-form indictment for attempted first-degree murder. Although a question of first impression for this Court, the Court of Appeals has sustained this use of the short-form indictment on at least three occasions. See, e.g., State v. Andrews, 154 N.C. App. 553, 559-60, 572 S.E.2d 798, 803 (2002), cert. denied, 358 N.C. 156, 592 S.E.2d 696 (2004); State v. Trull, 153 N.C. App. 630, 640, 571 S.E.2d 592, 599 (2002); appeal dismissed, 356 N.C. 691, 578 S.E.2d 596 (2003), disc. rev. denied, 356 N.C. 691, 578 S.E.2d 597 (2003); State v. Choppy, 141 N.C. App. 32, 41, 539 S.E.2d 44, 50-51 (2000) (upholding indictment alleging \u201cdefendant. .. unlawfully, willfully and feloniously and of malice aforethought did attempt to kill and murder [the victim]\u201d), appeal dismissed and disc. rev. denied, 353 N.C. 384, 547 S.E.2d 817 (2001).\nThe cardinal principle of statutory construction is to discern the intent of the legislature. N.C. Sch. Bds. Ass\u2019n v. Moore,-N.C.-, \u2014, 614 S.E.2d 504, 512 (2005); Burgess v. Your House of Raleigh, Inc., 326 N.C. 205, 209, 388 S.E.2d 134, 137 (1990). In discerning the intent of the General Assembly, statutes in pari materia should be construed together and harmonized whenever possible. Williams v. Williams, 299 N.C. 174, 180-81, 261 S.E.2d 849, 854 (1980). In light of these canons of construction, we construe N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 alongside N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170, another statutory provision in Chapter 15 related to the sufficiency of indictments. N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 provides that \u201c[u]pon the trial of any indictment the prisoner may be convicted of the crime charged therein or of a less degree of the same crime, or of an attempt to commit the crime so charged, or of an attempt to commit a less degree of the same crime.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 (2003) (emphasis added). This statute, which was enacted in 1891, permits an indictment for first-degree murder to sustain a conviction for attempted first-degree murder. See id.\nDefendant contends that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 is inapposite for two reasons. First, defendant argues that section 15-170 is applicable only when there is evidence tending to show that the defendant may be guilty of a lesser-included offense. In support of this contention, defendant relies on State v. Jones, in which we stated that \u201cG.S. 15-169 and G.S. 15-170 are applicable only when there is evidence tending to show that the defendant may be guilty of a lesser offense.\u201d 249 N.C. 134, 139, 105 S.E.2d 513, 516 (1958). But the issue presented in Jones and in the cases cited therein was whether the trial court\u2019s failure to instruct the jury as to a lesser-included offense constituted reversible error. Id. With respect to this issue, we concluded that \u201c \u2018[t]he necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed.\u2019 \u201d Id. (quoting State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 159, 84 S.E.2d 545, 547 (1954)). In the present case, by contrast, we consider the express provision in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 that an indictment will support a conviction \u201cof an attempt to commit the crime so charged.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 (emphasis added). It is implausible to suggest that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 permits an indictment to support a conviction for attempt only when the evidence supports the defendant\u2019s conviction for a lesser-included offense. Because Jones did not address the language in N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 concerning attempt, it does not foreclose our consideration of the statute in the instant case.\nSecond, defendant argues that because he was charged with attempted murder, not murder, the statute has no application to the instant case. Defendant emphasizes that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 permits an indictment to support a conviction for attempt to commit the crime charged and that the instant indictment expressly charged defendant with attempted murder. As defendant puts it, whether he \u201ccould be convicted of . . . \u2018attempted\u2019 attempted murder is not at issue\u201d in this case.\nWe agree with defendant that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 does not, in and of itself, authorize the use of the short-form indictment to allege attempted first-degree murder. Indeed, the question presented is whether the instant indictment is valid under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144, not N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170. Nonetheless, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170 is relevant to our inquiry in that it reflects the General Assembly\u2019s judgment that, for purposes of the indictment requirement, attempt is generally treated as a subset of the completed offense. This general principle is further reflected in other provisions in Chapter 15 and in our case law arising under that Chapter. See, e.g., N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144.1(a) (providing that a short-form indictment for rape will support a conviction for attempted rape); N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144.2(a) (providing that a short-form indictment for sex offense will support a conviction for attempted sex offense); State v. Surles, 230 N.C. 272, 52 S.E.2d 880 (1949) (upholding the defendant\u2019s conviction for attempted second-degree burglary in a prosecution for burglary).\nMoreover, construing N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 to permit the use of the short-form indictment for attempted first-degree murder in no way undermines the purposes of the indictment requirement. We have previously stated that the chief policies underlying the indictment requirement are (1) \u201cto give the defendant notice of the charge against him to the end that he may prepare a defense and be in a position to plead double jeopardy if he is again brought to trial for the same offense\u201d and (2) \u201cto enable the court to know what judgment to pronounce in case of conviction.\u201d State v. Sills, 311 N.C. 370, 375-76, 317 S.E.2d 379, 382 (1984). In the instant case, the addition of the word \u201cattempt\u201d to the indictment at issue could only have bolstered these salutary principles by narrowing the focus of the trial and restricting the range of possible convictions beyond those authorized by an unmodified short-form murder indictment.\nIt is well settled that \u201c[i]n construing statutes courts normally adopt an interpretation which will avoid absurd or bizarre consequences, the presumption being that the legislature acted in accordance with reason and common sense and did not intend untoward results.\u201d State ex rel. Comm\u2019r of Ins. v. N.C. Auto. Rate Admin. Office, 294 N.C. 60, 68, 241 S.E.2d 324, 329 (1978). Applying this principle, there is no question that a short-form indictment for first-degree murder would support a conviction for attempted first-degree murder. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170; see also Hunt, 357 N.C. 257, 582 S.E.2d 593 (upholding an indictment virtually identical to that in the instant case, with the exception of the \u201cattempt to\u201d language). Yet on defendant\u2019s construction of the applicable statutes, the insertion of the words \u201cattempt to\u201d in the instant indictment would render the indictment invalid and unable to support a conviction for the crime charged. In other words, the state would be penalized for amending the indictment in a manner that better reflects the state\u2019s theory of the case and limits the range of possible convictions to one particular offense \u2014 attempted first-degree murder. We will not countenance a construction of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 that would operate in such a manner. Accordingly, we hold that N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144, when construed alongside N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170, implicitly authorizes the state to utilize a short-form indictment to charge attempted first-degree murder. We further hold that when drafting such a indictment, it is sufficient for statutory purposes for the state to allege \u201cthat the accused person feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought, did [attempt to] kill and murder\u201d the named victim.\nDefendant next argues that the instant indictment violates the United States and North Carolina Constitutions. Defendant argues that since the indictment fails to allege specific intent, premeditation, and deliberation, it is unconstitutional. In State v. Hunt, this Court thoroughly addressed the issue of whether short-form indictments pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 are constitutional in light of the United States Supreme Court decisions in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 153 L. Ed. 2d 556 (2002), Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 147 L. Ed. 2d 435 (2000), and Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 143 L. Ed. 2d 311 (1999), and held that the short-form indictment for first-degree murder fully comports with the United States Constitution. 357 N.C. at 265-78, 582 S.E.2d at 599-607. Indeed, multiple decisions of this Court have upheld the constitutionality of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144 under both the federal and state constitutions. See State v. Braxton, 352 N.C. 158, 173-75, 531 S.E.2d 428, 436-38 (2000) (federal and state constitutions), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1130, 148 L. Ed. 2d 797 (2001); State v. Wallace, 351 N.C. 481, 508, 528 S.E.2d 326, 343 (federal constitution), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1018, 148 L. Ed. 2d 498 (2000); State v. Kilpatrick, 343 N.C. 466, 472, 471 S.E.2d 624, 628 (1996) (federal constitution); State v. Avery, 315 N.C. 1, 12-14, 337 S.E.2d 786, 792-93 (1985) (state constitution). Defendant contends that Hunt does not control in the instant case because Hunt concerned a short-form indictment and attempted first-degree murder cannot validly be charged by a short-form indictment. As discussed above, however, the short-form indictment in the instant case is statutorily sufficient. Therefore, Hunt applies, and the indictment in the present case is constitutionally valid.\nSimilarly, defendant\u2019s reliance on State v. Lucas, 353 N.C. 568, 597-98, 548 S.E.2d 712, 731 (2001) (holding that the state must allege a firearm enhancement in an indictment), is misplaced. Hunt makes clear that \u201cthe principles of Lucas do not otherwise apply to short-form indictments.\u201d Hunt, 357 N.C. at 273, 582 S.E.2d at 603. Consequently, the indictment in the instant case comports with both statutory and constitutional requirements.\nAs a practical matter, the record reflects that there was no doubt at any stage of the proceedings that defendant was being tried for attempted first-degree murder. There were several indications throughout the trial that defendant had proper notice of the attempted murder charge. For instance, defense counsel requested that the trial court instruct on the \u201celement instructions on attempted murder.\u201d Without objection, the trial court instructed the jury as follows: \u201cAs I said, the Defendant has been charged, first of all, with attempted murder, which in North Carolina means attempted first degree murder.\u201d We therefore believe that the indictment gave defendant adequate notice of the alleged criminal offense under North Carolina law and that defendant was in no way prejudiced by the use of the short-form indictment.\nAccordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand to that Court for further remand to the Superior Court of Mecklenburg County for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion.\nREVERSED.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Roy Cooper, Attorney General, by Daniel R O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant/appellee.", "Paul Pooley for defendant appellee/appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHRISTOPHER NATHANIEL JONES\nNo. 389PA04\n(Filed 19 August 2005)\n1. Homicide\u2014 attempted common law murder \u2014 short-form indictment\nThe Court of Appeals erred by concluding that the short-form indictment in this case charged defendant with the offense of attempted common law murder which is an offense not recognized by our General Statutes because a reasonable implication of the indictment is that when it alleged that defendant \u201cdid attempt to murder,\u201d it could only have meant attempted first-degree murder since North Carolina does not recognize a criminal offense denominated as attempted second-degree murder.\n2. Homicide\u2014 attempted first-degree murder \u2014 short-form indictment\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-144, when construed alongside N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15-170, implicitly authorizes the use of a short-form indictment to charge attempted first-degree murder. When drafting such an indictment, it is suffici\u00e9nt for statutory purposes for the State to allege \u201cthat the accused person feloniously, willfully, and of his malice aforethought, did [attempt to] kill and murder\u201d the named victim.\n3. Homicide\u2014 attempted first-degree murder \u2014 short-form indictment \u2014 constitutionality\nThe short-form indictment used to charge defendant with attempted first-degree murder was constitutional.\nOn discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 165 N.C. App. 540, 598 S.E.2d 694 (2004), vacating a judgment entered on 8 August 2001 by Judge Forrest D. Bridges in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. On 6 October 2004, the Supreme Court allowed defendant\u2019s conditional petition for discretionary review as to additional issues. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 March 2005.\nRoy Cooper, Attorney General, by Daniel R O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant/appellee.\nPaul Pooley for defendant appellee/appellant." }, "file_name": "0832-01", "first_page_order": 870, "last_page_order": 877 }