for murder based on the predicate felony of assault a valid crime in the state of Washington. Id. Accordingly, the Hinton petitioners’ convictions, based on a non-existent crime, were vacated and their cases were remanded. Id. at 805. Here, while Torres raises a reasonable question as to whether the state could actually prove the murder charges against him, he cannot contend that the charge set forth in the indictment is not a crime. See § 11-23-1 (establishing that drug crimes can form the predicate felony for felony murder). This Court has stated that “[w]hen an indictment is otherwise sufficient, a lack of evidentiary details establishing the facts of the offense does not invalidate that indictment * * Con-cannon, 457 A.2d at 1355; see also State v. Tower, 984 A.2d 40, 44 (R.I.2009) (<HOLDING>) (quoting State v. DelBonis, 862 A.2d 760, 764
holding that the trial court properly struck the amended complaint when the plaintiff offered no reason to refute the trial courts finding that the new allegations in the amended complaint were based on facts the plaintiff had known since the beginning of the action holding that jurisdiction is determined at the time the complaint is filed and postfiling events cannot create jurisdiction holding that  subjectmatter jurisdiction hinges on the allegations in the complaint rather than what the state can prove at trial a complaint that properly sets forth the crime charged is sufficient to invoke jurisdiction holding that because the state failed to properly file the complaint the district court lacked jurisdiction to proceed to trial holding the presence or absence of federalquestion jurisdiction is governed by the veil pleaded complaint rule which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only where a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint