The scant authority that exists on this question is in accord with our holding here. Williams, supra, in which we chose the time of death as the time the murder was committed for the purpose of deciding if defendant was an accessory after the fact to murder, is sound, although, for purposes of the prohibition against ex post facto legislation, we hold that the date(s) of the murderous acts rather than the date of death is the date the murder was committed. However, when it becomes necessary to choose between the time the fatal blow is struck or the time of death for some special purpose, such as accessory after the fact to murder or to determine if a certain punishment is barred by the ex post facto clause, the choice should be dictated by the nature of the inquiry.15A-903 or any former statute or the common law, to a list of State's witnesses.
![nc bill of particulars example nc bill of particulars example](https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/cache/53/cb/53cbcf901e3aebebdd1cb6dba9c803c2.jpg)
In defendant's second motion for a bill of particulars, she sought disclosure of a list of witnesses that the State intended to call at trial.Defendant's showings on cross-examination of potential weak spots in the chain of custody relate then only to the weight to be given this testimony. 258, 254 S.E.2d 591 (1979) (results of tests for arsenic poisoning performed at this same laboratory were properly admitted). An adequate chain of possession, delivery, transporting and safekeeping of these specimens was shown in order to prove that the test results testified to at trial were the results of tests performed on specimens from the body of Don Gene Detter. From the above summary of the chain of custody of the deceased's specimens, it is clear that the possibility that the specimens were interchanged with those from another body is too remote to have required ruling this evidence inadmissible.
![nc bill of particulars example nc bill of particulars example](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4BLjMtwOuGk/WhXjDYJV2RI/AAAAAAABG-E/TM4TNwnDKmMfUQFt8A8HceZkBhPJt_eGACK4BGAYYCw/s1600/Bill%2BOf%2BParticulars%2B-%2BBill%2BOf%2BParticulars%2BVirginia-720732.png)
![nc bill of particulars example nc bill of particulars example](https://forms.legal/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/free-nc-bill-of-sale.png)
15A-2002 violated the prohibition against imposition of an ex post facto punishment. Constitutional Law 33: Homicide 31.1 - murder by poisoning - dates of murderous acts - ex post facto punishment - death penalty improperly imposed For purposes of the prohibition against ex post facto legislation, the dates of the murderous acts rather than the date of death is the date the murder was committed therefore, where defendant administered poison to her husband on three occasions, all before 1 June 1977, at a time when the maximum punishment for first degree murder was life imprisonment, then imposition of the sentence of death under G.S. 880 (1977), in which the United States Supreme Court held that it is not impermissible for a state to impose reasonable conditions on the assertion of motions to suppress evidence. 15A-975(a) provides that, "n superior court, the defendant may move to suppress evidence only prior to trial unless the defendant did not have reasonable opportunity to make the motion before trial or unless a motion to suppress is allowed during trial under subsection (b) or (c)." (Emphasis added.) When no exception to making the motion to suppress before trial applies, failure to make the pretrial motion to suppress waives any right to contest the admissibility of the evidence at trial on constitutional grounds.