State v. Arnold
Supreme Court of Vermont
Indictment for adultery. Plea, not guilty, and trial by jury, December Term, 1876, Redfield, J., presiding. After the jury were empanneled, but before the trial commenced, the State’s attorney moved for and obtained leave to amend the indictment by inserting therein after the words, “ Roxcena Whitney,” the alleged particeps, the words, “ otherwise called Rosa Whitney” ; to which the respondent excepted.
Read the full summary
Indictment for adultery. Plea, not guilty, and trial by jury, December Term, 1876, Redfield, J., presiding. After the jury were empanneled, but before the trial commenced, the State’s attorney moved for and obtained leave to amend the indictment by inserting therein after the words, “ Roxcena Whitney,” the alleged particeps, the words, “ otherwise called Rosa Whitney” ; to which the respondent excepted. The prosecution gave evidence tending to show the commission of an act of adultery by the respondent with said particeps, on June 11, 1876, at a certain place. The respondent introduced…
1Opinion of the Court
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Barrett, J.
The amendment was not for the purpose of curing a •“ formal defect apparent on the face of the indictment,” as expressed in sec. 1, No. 5, Acts of 1870. The face of the indictment did not show any defect. The object of the amendment was to make the designation of the particeps consistent with evidence that might be given showing that she, whose name was, in fact, Roxcena, was called for short, Rosa. In order to maintain the indictment, it was necessary to identify the person with whom the respondent committed the criminal act as being…
2Cited by4 opinions
- State v. Wilkins & BlowSupreme Court of Vermont · 1892
- State v. AmidonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1885
- State v. HarveySupreme Judicial Court of Maine · 1928
- State v. MurphySupreme Court of Vermont · 1883