Crawford v. State
Indiana Supreme Court
ERROR to the Hamilton Circuit Court. This was an indictment against the plaintiff in error for stealing “ a bank note of the State Bank of Ohio for the payment of 10 dollars.” The indictment concluded against the form of the statute. A motion was made to quash the indictment on two grounds. 1st. That the bank note was not described with sufficient particularity; 2d. That the indictment should have concluded against the form of the statutes.
Read the full summary
ERROR to the Hamilton Circuit Court. This was an indictment against the plaintiff in error for stealing “ a bank note of the State Bank of Ohio for the payment of 10 dollars.” The indictment concluded against the form of the statute. A motion was made to quash the indictment on two grounds. 1st. That the bank note was not described with sufficient particularity; 2d. That the indictment should have concluded against the form of the statutes. This motion was overruled; whereupon the defendant pleaded not guilty, which issue the jury found for the state, and, after unsuccessful motions for a new…
1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.
We think the objections to the indictment in this case are not tenable. It was not necessary that the note should have been described with greater particularity. Engleman v. The State, at this term (1). It has been held that when an act is made a criminal offence by one statute, and the penalty is fixed by another, an indictment for doing such act should conclude against the form of the statutes, because the indictment could not be founded on a single statute. But this is not such a case. The 15th section of the 53d chapter of the Revised Statutes enacts that any person who shall feloniously…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. CarylNew York Supreme Court · 1834
3Cited by3 opinions
- Keating v. PeopleIllinois Supreme Court · 1896
- Jones v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1877
- Arnold v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1875