State v. Hastings
Supreme Court of New Hampshire
1. This indictment — State against Sarah Hastings — alleged that the defendant did “ falsely make and counterfeit” a certain writing therein set forth ; whereupon the defendant objected to that part of the indictment, on the ground that the same ivas a double pleading, and did not “ fully and plainly, substantially and- formally, describe to ” her the offence of which she was accused.
Read the full summary
1. This indictment — State against Sarah Hastings — alleged that the defendant did “ falsely make and counterfeit” a certain writing therein set forth ; whereupon the defendant objected to that part of the indictment, on the ground that the same ivas a double pleading, and did not “ fully and plainly, substantially and- formally, describe to ” her the offence of which she was accused. The court overruled the objection,'to which ruling the defendant excepted. 2. The indictment alleges the defendant’s “ intent to defraud one John A. Harris,” and the evidence showed that, if any intent to…
1Opinion of the CourtSargent, C. J.
The first exception is not well taken. Where the same section of a statute makes two or more distinct acts connected with the same transaction indictable, each one of which may be con*457sidered as representing a stage in the same offence, they may usually be coupled together, not only in the same indictment, but in the same count. 1 Whart. Am. Cr. Law (6th ed.) sec. 390; 2 id., sec. 1466. A case directly in point is State v. Morton, 27 Vt. 310. So, in Massachusetts, in an indictment on Rev. Stats., ch. 58, sec. 2, wherein the setting up or promoting of any of the exhibitions therein named,…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Commonwealth v. TrimmerMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1805
- State v. MortonSupreme Court of Vermont · 1855
- Albee v. ColeSupreme Court of Vermont · 1866
- Fitch v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1831
3Cited by1 opinion
- State v. DeMatteoSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1991