Benito Lovato v. State of New Mexico
| Decision Date | 11 December 1916 |
| Docket Number | No. 123,123 |
| Citation | 61 L.Ed. 244,242 U.S. 199,37 S.Ct. 107 |
| Parties | BENITO LOVATO, Piff. in Err., v. STATE OF NEW MEXICO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. T. B. Catron for plaintiff in error.
Mr. Frank W. Clancy, Attorney General of New Mexico, for defendant in error.
In the district court of the territory of New Mexico the accused, on May 9th, 1910, pleaded not guilty to an indictment for murder. On May 24, 1911, without withdrawing his plea, he demurred to the indictment on the ground that it charged no offense. The demurrer was overruled, and, both parties announcing themselves ready for trial, a jury was impaneled and sworn and the witnesses for both sides were called and sworn. The record then states: 'That thereupon it appearing to E. C. Abbott, Esq., district attorney, that defendant had not been arraigned and had not plead since the overruling of defendant's demurrer, upon motion the court dismissed the jury and directed that the defendant be arraigned and plead.' The accused was accordingly again at once arraigned and pleaded not guilty, and, both sides again announcing themselves ready for trial, the same jury previously impaneled was sworn and the trial proceeded. At the close of the evidence for the prosecution the defendant moved for a directed verdict on the ground, among others, that the record showed that he had been formerly placed in jeopardy for the same offense, since it appeared that in the same case a jury had been impaneled and sworn and thereafter had been dismissed from a consideration of the case. The motion was denied and a conviction of manslaughter followed. The same ground was relied upon in a motion in arrest of judgment which was denied, and from the judgment and sentence subsequently entered an appeal was prosecuted to the supreme court of the territory.
Pending the appeal New Mexico was admitted to the Union and the case was heard by the supreme court of the state. In that court, in addition to the contention as to former jeopardy, the accused urged that he had been denied due process of law and had been deprived of the right to a trial by jury because from the record it appeared that although a jury was impaneled before he was arraigned and pleaded not guilty, that jury was dismissed and it did not appear that any jury was impaneled after his arraignment and plea. The court held this contention to be without merit and concluded from a consideration of the commonlaw doctrine of former jeopardy, in the light of which it deemed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Himmelfarb v. United States
...opinion that jeopardy attached with the swearing of the first jury. 3 The following cases are relevant: In Lovato v. State of New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199, 37 S.Ct. 107, 61 L.Ed. 244, the defendant was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to an indictment for murder. Later, without withdrawing the ......
-
State v. Sanborn
...affirmed Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364, 81 S.Ct. 1523, 6 L.Ed.2d 901 (conduct of district attorney); Lovato v. State of New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199, 37 S.Ct. 107, 61 L.Ed. 244 (dismissal to permit arraignment); People v. Thomas, 15 Ill.2d 344, 155 N.E.2d 16, 19 (judge charged defendant's......
-
State v. Cypher
...we have consistently declined to scrutinize with sharp surveillance the exercise of that discretion. See Lovato v. State of New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199, 37 S.Ct. 107, 61 L.Ed. 244; cf. Wade v. Hunter, In United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165, the authoritative starting point of fed......
-
U.S. v. Shinault, 97-3061
...in the judgment) (emphasis added) (citations and internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see also Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199, 201, 37 S.Ct. 107, 61 L.Ed. 244 (noting that mere irregularity of procedure does not implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause). Only if the trial befo......
-
CHAPTER 14 DOUBLE JEOPARDY
...Id.[67] Schulhofer, Note 62, supra, at 459.[68] Besides Perez, see Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U.S. 71 (1902).[69] Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U.S. 199 (1916).[70] Thompson v. United States, 155 U.S. 271 (1894).[71] Simmons v. United States, 142 U.S. 148 (1891).[72] Brock v. North Carolina, 344 U......