Legal Opinion

Choen v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided May 15, 1882No. 10,229PublishedCited by 33 opinions

From the Cass Circuit Court.

1Opinion of the CourtWoods, J.

By plea in abatement, and by motion to-quash, the appellant has raised the question whether the indictment is defective, because not signed by the prosecuting attorney, but by one who signed as “ special prosecuting attorney,” the record not showing affirmatively the ajzpointment; of a special prosecuting attorney.

The law provides for the appointment by the judge of the-court of “ some person to prosecute,” if the prosecuting attorney fails to attend, and' the pez’son so appointed may well be designated as a special prosecuting attorney. R. S. 1881,, section 5865. And, by the use of the word…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Morrison v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  2. Mountjoy v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1881
  3. Hipes v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1880

3Cited by33 opinions

  1. Powers v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1882
  2. Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. HadleyIndiana Supreme Court · 1907
  3. Dull v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Perfect v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1923
  5. State v. BowlesSupreme Court of Kansas · 1905

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API