Davidson v. State
| Decision Date | 06 January 1885 |
| Docket Number | 12,009 |
| Citation | 99 Ind. 366 |
| Parties | Davidson v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Henry Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
--. Brown and R. Warner, for appellant.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, G. W. Duncan, Prosecuting Attorney and W. B. Hord, for the State.
Indictment against Lincoln Davidson for a violation of the provisions of section 1984, R. S. 1881.
The first count charged Davidson with having, on the 15th day of December, 1883, unlawfully drawn and threatened to use a pistol upon one Elden Thornburg.
The second count charged Davidson with having, on the same day unlawfully threatened to use a pistol, which he already had and held in his hands, upon the said Thornburg.
A jury found Davidson guilty as charged in the second count of the indictment, assessing a fine against him of $ 25, and judgment followed upon the verdict.
After the evidence for the State was closed, Davidson, the defendant, produced a transcript from the docket of one Abraham Wrightman, a justice of the peace of Henry county, showing that, on the 19th day of December, 1883, one George M. Wright filed his affidavit before said justice, charging that on or about the 17th day of that month, at said county of Henry in this State, as affiant verily believed, Orliff Davidson did then and there unlawfully carry a dangerous and deadly weapon, to wit, a revolver, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana; that the said Orliff Davidson was arrested upon that charge and fined the sum of $ 1 and adjudged to pay the costs of the prosecution against him. Wrightman testified that Orliff Davidson, the person named as defendant in the proceedings had as above before him, was also known as Lincoln Davidson, and was the same person who was the defendant in this cause, and that the two prosecutions grew out of, and were based upon, the same transaction.
The defendant then offered to read the transcript to the jury as evidence of a former conviction for the offence for which he was then on trial, but the court refused to permit him to read the transcript in evidence, and upon that refusal of the court a question was reserved upon the proceedings below.
As a bar to a subsequent prosecution, it is not necessary to the validity of a former conviction that it should have been had upon a formally sufficient charge. For such a purpose a former conviction resting upon a defective charge is sufficient. Fritz v. State, 40 Ind. 18; State v. George, 53 Ind. 434; Greenwood v. State, 64 Ind. 250.
But such a conviction must, nevertheless, be on some charge known to the law as a criminal offence, however defectively stated. 1 Bishop Crim. L., section 1021.
The affidavit filed before Justice Wrightman charged no criminal offence of any kind against Orliff Davidson. Section 1985, R S. 1881, makes carrying a pistol concealed an offence. It also makes it a misdemeanor to carry a pistol openly with the intent, or avowed purpose, of injuring some other person. But neither that, nor any other section of the statute known to us, makes the simple carrying a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. State
...be shown by the instruments which charged the offenses, but that such offenses must be the same in fact."). Beginning in Davidson v. State, 99 Ind. 366 (1885), however, this Court, without expressly overruling precedent or noting a change in jurisprudence, shifted its consideration away fro......
-
The State v. Temple
...Ed.), 943, 944; Vaughn v. Commonwealth, 2 Va. Cas. 273; People v. Warren, 1 Parker (N.Y.) 338; Greenwood v. State, 64 Ind. 250; Davidson v. State, 99 Ind. 366. BURGESS, P. J. On the 14th day of June, 1904, the prosecuting attorney of Buchanan county filed an information in the office of the......
-
Joslyn v. State
...Much to the same effect is the reasoning in State v. Hattabough, 66 Ind. 223, and Siebert v. State, 95 Ind. 471-480. See, also, Davidson v. State, 99 Ind. 366. We know that there are decisions hostile to the conclusion we here assert; but we are satisfied that our conclusion is right on pri......
-
Newman v. State
...conducted a thorough review of the history of state double jeopardy jurisprudence, citing, among others, the case of Davidson v. State, 99 Ind. 366 (1885). Davidson held that unlawfully carrying a deadly weapon and threatening to use a pistol were not the same offense for double jeopardy pu......