State v. I. S. S.
Supreme Court of Vermont
THIS was an indictment for forgery. The defendant shewed in evidence a complete defence. Mr. Attorney now moved to enter a nolle prosequi. We apprehend a nolle prosequi cannot be pleaded in bar to a subsequent indictment for the same offence. We consider our defence so ample and conclusive, that we are entitled to a verdict, and entry of judgment, eat sine die, that by plea of auterfoits acquit, we may be enabled to set this illiberal prosecution for ever at rest.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Cúriam.
We consider the State Attorney’s prerogative of entering a nolle prosequi to be'suspended while the cause is in issue to the Jury. He cannot then enter without leave of Court.
The defence here is ample and honourable to the accused. He is entitled to a verdict. Let the trial proceed.
The Jury returned a verdict of non out. and defendant was discharged.
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. DesoSupreme Court of Vermont · 1938
- State v. ChampeauSupreme Court of Vermont · 1880
- State v. PersonsSupreme Court of Vermont · 1953
- Commonwealth v. StedmanMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1847