State v. Bundy
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
On exceptions. Indictment for an assault with intent to murder. The respondent was convicted. The name of the person assaulted mentioned in the indictment was Annie Maria St. John, which she when called as a witness for the prosecution testified to be her name. Upon her cross-examination, it appeared that she had been married prior to the time named in the indictment, to a man named Penney, and had been known by the name of Penney and of St. John.
Read the full summary
On exceptions. Indictment for an assault with intent to murder. The respondent was convicted. The name of the person assaulted mentioned in the indictment was Annie Maria St. John, which she when called as a witness for the prosecution testified to be her name. Upon her cross-examination, it appeared that she had been married prior to the time named in the indictment, to a man named Penney, and had been known by the name of Penney and of St. John. The government introduced, subject to the objection of the respondent’s counsel, the record of her divorce at the October term, 1867, of the…
1Opinion of the CourtDankorth, J.
The exceptions cannot be sustained. In an indictment for an assault and battery, the name of the person alleged to have been assaulted is used only for the purpose of identification. When such person is known equally well by two names, the use of either of them is sufficient, since either identifies the particular individual assaulted and makes the crime certain, so that *510tbe respondent can be in no danger of being twice put in jeopardy in relation to it. Exceptions overruled.
Appleton, C. J., Walton, Barrows, Virgin and Peters, JJ., concurred.
2Cited by5 opinions
- People v. GrayIllinois Supreme Court · 1911
- State v. AlieWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1918
- State v. MyrbergWashington Supreme Court · 1909
- State v. QuinlanSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1889
- In re CrepeaultSupreme Court of Vermont · 1967