Commonwealth v. Nailor
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 243, April T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Butler Co., June T., 1904, No. 29, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Lizzie Nailor. Indictment for abortión.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 243, April T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of Q. S. Butler Co., June T., 1904, No. 29, on verdict of guilty in case of Commonwealth v. Lizzie Nailor. Indictment for abortión. Before Galbreath, P. J. The defendant filed a motion to quash alleging the following reasons: 1. Because the bill of indictment is bad for duplicity, is vague and uncertain, in that it charges the defendant with the unlawful use of a certain instrument with intent to procure a miscarriage, also with unlawfully aiding and assisting and using the same on the body of said Annie Phillips. 2. Because the…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Smith, J.,
In an indictment, some specific date must be stated as that on which the offense was committed. It is not necessary, however, to prove the time as laid, except when time enters into the nature of the offense, or the date is to be proved by matter of record, as when perjury is charged to have been committed in a proceeding in a court of record. It is sufficient *273that the date laid is one on which the offense might have been •committed, and that the offense, if committed on such date, is by law punishable at the time of finding the' indictment. Thus the date laid must be…
2Cited by10 opinions
- Commonwealth v. PolinSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1940
- Wilson v. StateSupreme Court of Florida · 1938
- Commonwealth v. ColemanSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1915
- Commonwealth v. GipeSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Meyers v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1929
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.