Commonwealth v. Adams
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 25 —INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM CRITTENDEN CIRCUIT COURT. The court had no right to change the offense charged in the indictment. If the descriptive part of the indictment did not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged, then the court should have sustained the demurrer to the indictment.
Read the full summary
Case 25 —INDICTMENT— APPEAL PROM CRITTENDEN CIRCUIT COURT. The court had no right to change the offense charged in the indictment. If the descriptive part of the indictment did not contain a statement of facts sufficient to constitute the crime charged, then the court should have sustained the demurrer to the indictment. If an indictment charges a public offense within the jurisdiction of the court a demurrer should be overruled, and where the facts stated show that the defendant is guilty of an offense of lower degree than that charged the court may put him on trial for the lesser offense.…
1Opinion of the Court
OHIEE JUSTICE HOLT
delivered the opinion op the court.
The charge in the indictment, aa returned by the grand jury, was forgery. In considering the defendant’s de*135murrer to it the court expressed a doubt as to its sufficiency to support a conviction for that offense, but was ■of the opinion that the facts stated were sufficient to constitute the offense of obtaining goods under false pretenses. Thereupon, the defendant consented that the charge in the indictment might be changed from forgery to obtaining goods under false pretenses, and it was done by direction of the coui’t. It is claimed that…
2Cited by11 opinions
- Nichols v. Houghton Circuit JudgeMichigan Supreme Court · 1915
- Singleton v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1948
- Salyers v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1938
- Coleman v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1973
- Luna v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1977
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.