Baldwin v. State

Citation88 So. 162,125 Miss. 561
Decision Date02 May 1921
Docket Number21711
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesBALDWIN v. STATE

March, 1921

INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION. Evidence before grand, jury cannot be inquired into.

The evidence on which the grand jury acted in finding an indictment cannot be inquired into on the trial of the defendant on the indictment.

HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Lee county, HON. C. P. LONG, Judge.

Charley Baldwin was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

Boggan, Leake & Boggan, for appellant.

H. C. Holden, assistant attorney-general, for the state.

No brief found in the record for counsel of either side.

OPINION

SMITH, C. J.

This is an appeal from a conviction for receiving stolen property on an indictment in which the property alleged to have been received is described as "certain dry goods and articles of wearing apparel. The exact description, further than this is to the grand jurors unknown." Each article of wearing apparel alleged to have been received by the appellant is specifically set forth in the testimony of the state's witnesses, two of them on cross-examination testified that an itemized statement thereof was given by them to the grand jury before the finding of the indictment. A motion by the appellant to exclude the evidence and also a request by him for a directed verdict on the ground of a variation between the indictment and the proof, in that the allegation therein that "the exact description further than this is to the grand jurors unknown" appears from the evidence to be false, were both overruled. Authorities are cited by counsel for the appellant to the effect that such a variance is fatal, but they are of no value here; for the rule in this state is that no inquiry can be made into the evidence on which the grand jury acted in finding an indictment. Smith v. State, 61 Miss. 754; Hammond v. State, 74 Miss. 214, 21 So. 149.

The other assignments of error are without substantial merit.

Affirmed.

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Price v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1929
  • State v. Bates
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • January 2, 1940
    ... ... D ... Conn, Jr., Assistant Attorney-General, for the State ... Whether ... or not immunity had been acquired could not be determined on ... a motion to quash an indictment ... Price ... v. State, 152 Miss. 625, 120 So. 951; Kyzar v ... State, 125. Miss. 79; Baldwin v. State, 125 ... Miss. 561, 88 So. 162; Blowe v. State, 130 Miss ... 112, 93 So. 577; State v. Peek, 95 Miss. 240, 48 So. 819 ... The ... court erred in sustaining the motion to quash the indictment ... Price ... v. State, 152 Miss. 625, 120 So. 951; Kyzar v ... ...
  • State v. Owen
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1930
    ...v. State, 5 How. 730; Rocco v. State, 37 Miss. 357; Durr v. State, 53 Miss. 425; Kyzar v. State, 125 Miss. 79, 87 So. 415; Baldwyn v. State, 125 Miss. 561, 88 So. 162; of N.Y. v. Shea, 147 N.Y. 78, 41 N.E. 505. An indictment will not be quashed where it does not appear from any affirmative ......
  • Blowe v. State
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • October 23, 1922
    ...States, 218 U.S. 245, affirming U. S. v. Holt, 168 F. 141, supports the doctrine laid down by our supreme court in the case of Baldwin v. State, supra. Lee v. State (Tex.), 40 L. R. A. S.) 1032. The court in speaking of this proposition, uses the following language: "2. Appellant contends t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT