Mitchell v. State
Tennessee Supreme Court
The indictment in this case, was for murder in the form of the indictment at common law, except that it conclu-dechsontraiy to the form of the statute. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon the trial, it appeared that the defendant was in possession of a tract of land, to which he claimed to have title; that Wilson, the deceased, as agent of some one in North Carolina, claimed the land.
Read the full summary
The indictment in this case, was for murder in the form of the indictment at common law, except that it conclu-dechsontraiy to the form of the statute. The defendant pleaded not guilty. Upon the trial, it appeared that the defendant was in possession of a tract of land, to which he claimed to have title; that Wilson, the deceased, as agent of some one in North Carolina, claimed the land. Upon the day the killing took place, the deceased, Wilson, had gone upon the land to make a survey of it. He came to where the defendant was at work in ploughing. A dispute arose between Wilson and the…
1Opinion of the Court
Catkon, Ch. J.
1. It is insisted, the indictment should have charged the killing, to make it a capital offence, not as formally to have been done with malice prepense, but in addition that it was done with premeditation. The object of the indictment is, to give the defendant precise in*346formation of the facts alleged against him. The common law had fixed forms of stating the facts, to change which would have produced great confusion, and therefore the legislature very wisely declared, by the 72d section of the Penitentiary code, that the old forms should be sufficient to authorize the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Recor v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee · 1971