Commonwealth v. Lingle

• Decision Date: 31 January 1936
• Docket Number: 397-1935
• Citation: 120 Pa.Super. 434,182 A. 802
• Parties: Commonwealth v. Lingle, Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Superior Court

182 A. 802

120 Pa.Super. 434

Commonwealth v. Lingle, Appellant

No. 397-1935

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

January 31, 1936

Submitted December 18, 1935.

Appeal by defendant, from judgment and sentence of Q. S., Lebanon Co., Dec. Sessions, 1934, No. 38, in case of Commonwealth v Ira Lingle.

Indictment for statutory rape. Before Henry, P. J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

Verdict of guilty and judgment of sentence thereon. Defendant appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was refusal of motion to quash indictment.

Affirmed.

James R. Koller, for appellant.

James L. Atkins, District Attorney, for appellee.

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker, James and Rhodes, JJ.

OPINION

Per Curiam.

The defendant was indicted for 'statutory' rape. He pleaded 'not guilty' and went to trial. The jury disagreed. When the case came up for trial the second time the defendant moved to quash the indictment, because the information, on which it was founded, failed to state that the offense had been committed in Lebanon County.

The indictment charged that the crime had been committed in Lebanon County, and all the evidence on the first trial, with respect to the commission of the crime fixed Lebanon County as the scene of the offense.

The court below refused to quash the indictment and the case went to trial. Again the evidence supporting the charge fixed Lebanon County as the place where the offense had been committed.

The defendant was convicted. He made a motion in arrest of judgment based solely on the fact that the information failed to state that the offense had been committed in Lebanon County. The court below refused the motion and sentenced the defendant. The defendant has appealed.

The action of the court below was right. By his plea and going to trial defendant waived any defects of form in the indictment or the proceedings prior to the indictment: Com. v. Schoen, 25 Pa.Super. 211, 213; and this waiver was effective as to all subsequent trials. The disagreement of the jury on the first trial, which necessitated a second trial, did not require a new plea. Having once entered a plea he could not thereafter object to formal defects in the indictment or the prior proceedings.

While section 11 of the Act of March 31, 1860, P. L. 427, relates only to formal defects in the indictment, the salutary and sensible rule there established has been applied with equal...