Elder v. State
| Decision Date | 17 June 1884 |
| Docket Number | 11,701 |
| Citation | 96 Ind. 162 |
| Parties | Elder v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Clay Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with cost.
S. W Curtis, for appellant.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, S. M. McGregor, Prosecuting Attorney and W. B. Hord, for the State.
This was a criminal prosecution upon affidavit and information, under section 1679, R. S. 1881. The affidavit and information were both in two counts. The first count of each charged the crime of burglary, and each second count charged grand larceny.
The defendant, the appellant here, upon oath, pleaded in abatement that the Clay Circuit Court had no lawful jurisdiction either of the defendant or over the subject-matter of the prosecution, because there had been no indictment returned against him for the offences with which he stood charged, but that he was held for trial on the charges of burglary and grand larceny preferred by affidavit and information only; that before and since the alleged commission of the crimes for which he was held for trial, the Clay Circuit Court had been and was still in session; that after the filing of the affidavit and information against him, the regular grand jury of Clay county had met and continued in session about one week, and had adjourned without returning an indictment against him for the crimes charged by the affidavit and information; that he, the defendant, was taken into custody after the commencement of the term of the Clay Circuit Court then in session, and during which said regular grand jury convened, and continued in session as herein above stated. Wherefore the defendant demanded that the prosecution should abate.
The circuit court sustained a demurrer to the plea in abatement, and a jury found the defendant guilty of burglary as charged, fixing his punishment at confinement in the State's prison for four years and disfranchisement for a definite period of time. Over a motion for a new trial challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, judgment followed upon the verdict.
The first objection urged to the proceedings below is that the provisions of section 1679, supra, are not sufficiently indicated by the title of the act of which it forms a part.
This section is the same, and is more properly known as section 106 of the act of April 14th, 1881 (Acts 1881, p. 134), entitled "An act concerning proceedings in criminal cases," and certainly has reference to the kind of proceedings referred to in the title.
The next objection made is that the section in question constitutes special legislation in derogation of sections 22 and 23 of article 4 of the Constitution of the State. But the provisions of the section have a uniform operation throughout the State, and apply to all alike under similar circumstances. Legislative enactments, thus operating and applying, can not be rightfully classified as special legislation. Heanley v. State, 74 Ind. 99.
Section 17 of article 7 of the Constitution of the State provides that "The General Assembly may modify or abolish the grand jury system."
That provision confers upon the Legislature a large discretion as to the manner in which criminal offences shall be prosecuted.
The plea in abatement presented only the question whether when...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Indianapolis v. Navin
... ... legislature should see fit to make other provisions. The act ... of 1897 re-enacts said section, with a proviso "that in ... cities in this State having a population of 100,000 or more, ... according to the United States census of 1890, the cash fare ... shall not exceed three cents for any ... Young v. Board, etc., 137 Ind ... 323, 36 N.E. 1118; Gilson v. Board, etc., ... 128 Ind. 65, 69, 27 N.E. 235 and cases cited; Elder ... v. State, 96 Ind. 162; Heanley v ... State, 74 Ind. 99; State, ex rel., v ... Reitz, 62 Ind. 159; Hanlon v. Board, ... etc., ... ...
-
The State v. Gerhardt
...172. See also Bank of the State v. City of New Albany, 11 Ind. 139; Reams v. State, 23 Ind. 111; Peachee v. State, 63 Ind. 399; Elder v. State, 96 Ind. 162; Shoemaker, Aud., Smith, 37 Ind. 122; State, ex rel., etc., v. Board, etc., 26 Ind. 522. We are next confronted with a more difficult p......
-
State ex rel. Lewis v. Smith
...State, ex rel., v. Reitz, 62 Ind. 159; McLaughlin v. Citizens, etc., Assn., 62 Ind. 264; Heanley v. State, 74 Ind. 99; Elder v. State, 96 Ind. 162." it was said by Frazer, J., in Hingle v. State, 24 Ind. 28, 31: "What is a special act? It is such as at common law the courts would not notice......
-
State v. Gerhardt
...E. 172. See, also, Bank of the State v. City of New Albany, 11 Ind. 139;Reams v. State, 23 Ind. 111;Peachee v. State, 63 Ind. 401;Elder v. State, 96 Ind. 162;Shoemaker v. Smith, 37 Ind. 122;State v. Board, etc., 26 Ind. 522. We are next confronted with a more difficult proposition,-the inva......