State v. Hinton
Supreme Court of Alabama
EeROR to the Circuit Court of Dallas. Novel and difficult questions. The defendants were indicted for living together in adultery and fornication. The first count charges that the defendants “livedtogether in adultery;” the second, “that they lived together in fornication.”
Read the full summary
EeROR to the Circuit Court of Dallas. Novel and difficult questions. The defendants were indicted for living together in adultery and fornication. The first count charges that the defendants “livedtogether in adultery;” the second, “that they lived together in fornication.” The jury having found the defendants guilty, they moved in arrest of judgment, because the charge in the indictment was too general, and because the finding was general on both counts, for distinct offences. The court overruled the motion, but referred the questions of law arising thereon for the consideration of this…
1Opinion of the CourtOrmond, J.
The objection taken to the first count of the indictment is, that it should have been alleged that one of the offending parties at least, was married. We do not think it was necessary. The crime of adultery consists in the illicit commerce of two persons of different sexes, one of whom at least, is married, and includes the crime of fornication. The term itself imports the offence without the allegation of any other fact.— The indictment was therefore sufficient.
The finding of the jury on both counts, cannot possibly prejudice the defendants, as the offence charged in the second count is…
2Cited by9 opinions
- McLeod v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1860
- State v. GlazeSupreme Court of Alabama · 1846
- White v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1883
- Smitherman v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1855
- United States v. GriegoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1902
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.