Bienz v. State, 26008.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1934 |
| Docket Number | No. 26008.,26008. |
| Citation | 206 Ind. 482,190 N.E. 170 |
| Parties | BIENZ v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Henry M. Dowling, Special Judge.
John L. Bienz was convicted of violating the Election Law by unlawfully marking an official ballot, and he appeals.
Reversed, with instructions.Kivett & Kivett, of Martinsville, and Robinson, Symmes & Melson, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
James M. Ogden, Atty. Gen., and V. Ed Funk, Dep. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was charged with, and convicted of, violating the Election Law by unlawfully marking an official ballot. His motion to quash the affidavit and motion to arrest judgment were overruled.
The only question presented here is the sufficiency of the affidavit to charge an offense. The statute under which the affidavit was drawn, in so far as it is involved in this case, is as follows: “If any inspector, judge, poll clerk or other person entrusted with the custody or control of any ballot or ballots, either before or after they have been voted, shall in any way mark, mutilate or deface any ballot, or place any distinguishing mark thereon, either for the purpose of identifying the same (except by numbering protested ballots for future reference), or for the purpose of vitiating the same, he shall be guilty of a felony, and, on conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state's prison not more than ten nor less than five years, and fined in any sum not exceeding two thousand dollars.” Section 7524, Burns' 1926.
The affidavit, omitting the formal parts, is as follows: “John L. Bienz, on or about the 8th day of May A. D. 1930, at and in the County of Marion and State of Indiana, was then and there entrusted by one Enos W. Hoover, who was then and there the duly appointed and qualified election inspector in the Ninth Precinct of the Fourth Ward in the City of Indianapolis at a primary election then and there held, with the custody and control of a certain official ballot of and for the candidates of the Republican party in and for said precinct and ward in said primary election, and that the said John L. Bienz did then and there unlawfully and feloniously mark said official Republican ballot, contrary to the form of the statute,” etc.
It is contended by the state that the statute defines several offenses, viz., marking a ballot, mutilating a ballot, defacing a ballot, placing a distinguishing mark upon a ballot for the purpose of identifying the same, and placing an identifying mark upon a ballot for the purpose of vitiating the same.
Appellant contends that the statute defines the crimes of marking, mutilating, defacing, or placing a distinguishing mark upon a ballot, either for the purpose of identifying or for the purpose of vitiating the same.
It is conceded by the state that, if appellant's construction of the statute is correct, no offense is charged, and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lubricant Consultants, Inc. v. Indiana Dept. of State Revenue, 49T10-9209-TA-00077
...Statutory language is deemed intentionally chosen by the legislature to give effect to the meaning of an act. Bienz v. State (1933) [1934], 206 Ind. 482, 484, 190 N.E. 170, 171. The court may not expand or contradict the meaning of a statute by reading into it language to correct supposed o......
-
State Police Bd. v. Moore
...173 Ind. 99, 89 N.E. 488, 25 L.R.A.,N.S., 818; State v. Lowry (Lewis v. State) (1906), 166 Ind. 372, 77 N.E. 728; Bienz v. State (1934), 206 Ind. 482, 190 N.E. 170. We believe appellee's position is well taken and we cannot indulge in judicial legislation to change the words in a penal stat......
- Bienz v. State