State v. Parmelee
Supreme Court of Connecticut
This was an information for an assault, with actual violence, on the body of Edmund Fanton, with an intention, without malice aforethought, him to kill, — contra formam statuti.
Read the full summary
This was an information for an assault, with actual violence, on the body of Edmund Fanton, with an intention, without malice aforethought, him to kill, — contra formam statuti. On the trial, at Danbury, September term, 1831, before Peters, J., the attorney for the state offered evidence tending to prove, that the prisoner, at the time and place alleged in the information, made an assault on Fanton, with clubs which he had procured for that purpose, with an intention to kill him. There,was no evidence of any provocation, given by Fanton, to the prisoner. The prisoner thereupon claimed, that…
1Opinion of the CourtPeters, J.
In support of this motion, the prisoner contends, that if convicted or acquitted on this information, he would be liable to be prosecuted for a higher crime, both on the same transaction, and so be made liable to be twice put in jeopardy for one act, contrary to a fundamental maxim of the common law. 4 Rep. 45. a. But there is no reasonable objection to a conviction or acquittal of an inferior crime, when it is an essential part of a greater crime, and supported by the same evidence. And it has often been adjudged, that a conviction or acquittal of one is a bar to a prosecution for the other.…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Clark v. RichardsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1814