State v. Anderson
Nevada Supreme Court
Appealed from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Hon. Wm. H. Beatty, presiding. The want of a proper description of the offense in the caption of the indictment is immaterial, if it be properly described and charged in the body of the indictment.
Read the full summary
Appealed from the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Hon. Wm. H. Beatty, presiding. The want of a proper description of the offense in the caption of the indictment is immaterial, if it be properly described and charged in the body of the indictment. The indictment is drawn in conformity to the requirements of the statute, and if there be any defect in form it could not prejudice the defendant; consequently under provisions of Sec. 589 of Practice Act, it does not invalidate the indictment. (See 14 Cal. 572, and 20 Cal. 117.) The defect, if any, being in the caption and not the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Lewis, J., Beatty, C. J.,
concurring.
*256The defendant was indicted under Sec. 40 of an Act entitled “ An Act concerning Crimes and Punishments,” approved November 26th, 1861, being charged with the crime of drawing and exhibiting a deadly weapon in a rude, angry and threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense. It seems to have been the purpose to draw the indictment in conformity with Sec. 235 of the Criminal Practice Act, and it commences by charging that “ William H. Anderson is accused by the Grand Jury of the County of Lander and State of Nevada, by this indictment, of the…
2Cited by7 opinions
- State v. AltwatterIdaho Supreme Court · 1916
- Silverman v. SilvermanNevada Supreme Court · 1930
- State v. ClarkNevada Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. MillsNevada Supreme Court · 1929
- State v. JohnsonNevada Supreme Court · 1874
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.