Fout v. State
| Decision Date | 30 November 1816 |
| Citation | 4 Tenn. 98 |
| Parties | CATHARINE FOUT v. THE STATE OF TENNESSEE. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
No indictment should be sent to the grand jury without the sanction of the solicitor-general, proved by his signature on some part of the indictment.
It is the duty of the State's officer to judge between the people and the government; to be the safeguard of the one and the advocate for the rights of the other; and he ought not to suffer the innocent to be oppressed or vexatiously harassed, any more than those who deserve prosecution to escape. (Acc. State v. Fields, Peck, 146, citing this case.)
The Supreme Court in criminal cases proceeds only upon writs of error, not by appeal, and has no power to act unless there be a final judgment, or something in the nature thereof.
[Cited in: 3 Heis., 275.]
The court below was moved to quash the indictment for not having a prosecutor indorsed as required by the Act of 1801, c. 30; 1803, c. 59, and refused the motion; the now plaintiff in error, being the person indicted in the court below, appealed. And now it is urged that the bill of indictment was prepared and sent, not by the attorney-general, but by one who signs himself John Wilkerson, acting as solicitor-general. We are of opinion, unanimously, that no indictment ought to be sent to the grand jury without the sanction and approbation of the solicitor-general, proved by his signature on some part of the bill. He is to judge between the people and the government; he is to be the safeguard of the one and the advocate for the rights of the other; he ought not to suffer the innocent to be oppressed or vexatiously harassed, any more than those who deserve prosecution to escape; he is to pursue guilt; he is to protect innocence; he is to judge of circumstances, and, according to their true complexion, to combine the public welfare and the safty of the citizens, preserving both, and not impairing either; he is to decline the use of individual passions, and individual malevolence, when he can not use them for the advantage of the public; he is to lay hold of them where...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gregory v. Shurtleff
...Concerns about giving private parties control over claims belonging to the general public drove this proscription. See Foute v. State, 4 Tenn. 98, 98–99 (1816). Courts feared that “leaving prosecutions to every attorney who will take a fee to prosecute” would frustrate “[t]he designs of the......
-
Tuma v. Commonwealth
...use them for the advantage of the public; he is to lay hold of them where public justice, in sound discretion, requires it.Foute v. State, 4 Tenn. 98, 99 (1816). The [prosecutor] is a quasi-judicial officer. He represents the commonwealth, and the commonwealth demands no victims. It seeks j......
-
Crumley v. State
...General proved by his signature on some part of the indictment. Campbell v. State, 17 Tenn. 333, 9 Yerg. 333, 30 Am.Dec. 417; Foute v. State, 4 Tenn. 98, 3 Hayw. 98; Bennett v. State, 8 Tenn. 133, Mart. & Y. 133; Hite v. State, 17 Tenn. 198, 9 Yerg. 198; Teas v. State, 26 Tenn. 174, 7 174; ......
-
Smith v. Steward
...James E. Martin v. Howard Carlton, No. 03C01-9807-CR-00253, 1999 WL 360147, at *3 (Tenn. Crim. App. June 7, 1999) (quoting Fout v. State, 4 Tenn. 98, 99 (1816)). Moreover, while a signature is required, it is "not necessarily required to be on each count of an indictment." James E. Martin, ......