Legal Opinion

Shotwell v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 15, 1884PublishedCited by 5 opinions

APPEAL from Carroll Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pettigrew, Circuit Judge. The indictment is bad because it does not set out with certainty the crime defendant is alleged to have intended to commit when entering the house. 24 Ges. 24; 12 Tex-Ct. of App., 395 ; Gantt’s Dig. See. 1796. Nor does it con. tain the word “ maliciously.” Gantt’s Dig. Sec., 1348 ; Waterman’s U. S. Or.

Read the full summary

APPEAL from Carroll Circuit Court. Hon. J. M. Pettigrew, Circuit Judge. The indictment is bad because it does not set out with certainty the crime defendant is alleged to have intended to commit when entering the house. 24 Ges. 24; 12 Tex-Ct. of App., 395 ; Gantt’s Dig. See. 1796. Nor does it con. tain the word “ maliciously.” Gantt’s Dig. Sec., 1348 ; Waterman’s U. S. Or. Dig. p. 343, See., 230; 34 N. II. 510; 1 Chand. 166. As to what is an out house see Bowvierp. 147; Bishop Or. Law vol. 3 See. 104; Boseoe Or. Ev. p: 278; Gantt’s Dig. See. 1795. Malice is a necessary ingredient in the crime…

1Opinion of the CourtCockrill, C. J.

The appellant was indicted for burglary under section 1348 of Gantt’s Digest. The offense is charged to have been committed by breaking and entering iuto “ an out house commonly known as a sample room.” It is urged that the indictment is in sufficient because :

1. It does not charge the offence in the language of the statute, but in place of the statutory words “ willfully and maliciously and with force break and enter” it substitutes the words “ feloniously, willfully and burglariously did break and enter.”

The offence alleged in the indictment is created by the statute and it is required that…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Lyons v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1873
  2. People v. ShaberCalifornia Supreme Court · 1867
  3. Johnson's v. Wiseman'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1863
  4. Wicks v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1870

3Cited by5 opinions

  1. Rea v. Motors Ins. CorporationNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1944
  2. Cooper v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  3. Turner v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922
  4. McCarthy v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1909
  5. Parnell v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908

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

Powered by the Exa API