Legal Opinion

Cain v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 1, 1838PublishedCited by 3 opinions

ERROR to the Daviess Circuit Court. Indictment for keepjng a digor(jerly house, &c., and judgment for the state.

1Opinion of the CourtSullivan, J.

The indictment in this case, as it was returned by the grand jury, did not conclude “ against the peace and dignity of the state.” The contra dignitatem was omitted. Before the defendant was arraigned, the prosecuting-attorney moved the Court to insert the omitted words. The defendant objected, but the Court overruled the objection and permitted the amendment to be made.

The indictment, as it was returned, was undoubtedly insufiicient; but the question is, whether the Court was authorised to amend it, so as to make the conclusion of the indictment conform to the requisition of the constitution?

Also in this document: Per curiam.

2Cited by3 opinions

  1. Brandau v. StateMississippi Supreme Court · 1995
  2. State v. MinfordSupreme Court of New Jersey · 1900
  3. Chemgas v. TynanSupreme Court of Colorado · 1911

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API