In presenting a motion to quash, the usual reasons are because of the imperfections of the indictment in either form or substance. If an indictment is so defective that it fails to charge an offense, it should, of course, be quashed; or if it omits any one or more of the material facts or elements necessary to constitute the offense, the court should sustain the motion to quash. But there are other grounds for quashing besides the imperfections appearing in or on the indictment. It may be perfect in form and substance and still there may be good reasons for quashing. For instance, the compelling of the defendant to testify in his own case before the grand jury being violative of his constitutional right, is ground for quashing the indictment. The constitution provides that "no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to give evidence against himself.77 An indictment, though perfect on its face, may be quashed if no evidence was presented to the grand jury upon which to base it,78 or if based upon testimony of witnesses not sworn, or upon the testimony of incompetent witnesses.79 That twelve of the grand jurors did not concur in finding the indictment is good ground to quash. But the testimony of grand jurors is not competent to prove that fact; they cannot impeach their own act in finding the indictment.80 So an indictment should be quashed if the names of the witnesses upon whose testimony it was found are not indorsed thereon. If an indictment contains one good count, the court will properly overrule the motion to quash it may contain several bad counts.81

76 People vs. Lewis, 64 Cal., 401; State vs. Van Nice, 7 S. Dak., 104.