State v. Gooch
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR to the Morgan Circuit Court.
1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.
— The defendant was indicted for living in open and notorious fornication with one Sarah Lang, he being an unmarried man. Whether S. L. was married or unmarried, does not appear by any distinct averment in the indictment. The Court, we are informed, quashed the indictment because it did not aver tfcat she was an unmarried woman.
On this question we admit there is some room for doubt, but our conclusion is, that the Court should not have quashed the indictment. It is not necessary that an indictment should negative every conceivable fact that may change the character of an offence. If, in the…
Also in this document: Per curiam.
2Cited by5 opinions
- Heckman v. SwartzWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
- State v. StephensIndiana Supreme Court · 1878
- Schmidt v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
- Stanton v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1901
- State v. ShoemakerIndiana Supreme Court · 1853