Hasse v. State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1894 |
| Parties | HASSE v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Marion county; M. F. Cox, Judge.
Lewis Hasse was convicted for an assault and battery, and appeals. Affirmed.
John W. Kern and Davis & Martz, for appellant. A. G. Smith, for the State.
The appellant was indicted, tried, and convicted in the court below for an assault and battery. The indictment is as follows: etc. The appellant at the proper time moved to quash the indictment, but the court overruled the motion, and it is contended that this ruling was error. The particular defect is claimed to consist in the failure to lay the venue of the offense properly, by omitting to name the state in which such offense was committed. Every indictment must name, in some certain manner, the county and state in which the offense is alleged to have been committed. It is sufficient if the state be named in the caption, and afterwards referred to, in some appropriate way, in connection with the venue of the offense. Gillett, Crim. Law, § 130, and cases cited. In the indictment under examination, the state was mentioned in the introductory portion, and then referred to as “the state aforesaid.” This was sufficient, and there was no error in overruling the motion to quash.
The next error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial. It appears that, after the trial had been in progress for some time, the prosecuting attorney conceived the notion that there was a variance between the indictment and proof upon the subject of the name of the injured party, the indictment charging the name to be Helen J. Patrick, while the evidence disclosed that it was Helen L. Patrick. While apparently laboring under this impression, the prosecuting attorney asked the court for time to prepare and file an affidavit and information in which the true name of the injured party might be set forth. To this the defendant objected, and then and there moved the court for a finding and judgment in favor of the defendant, which motion was overruled, and an exception reserved. The prosecuting attorney having prepared an affidavit and information, the same was now filed. A warrant was issued upon the same, and delivered to the sheriff, who arrested the appellant, and made due return of the warrant. Appellant was thereupon duly arraigned upon the affidavit and information, but refused to plead thereto. The trial under the indictment was then proceeded with before the court to whom it had been submitted, and the appellant was found guilty as charged in the indictment. One of the causes assigned in the motion for a new trial is that the finding is contrary to the law. Conceding, without deciding, that the question here sought to be presented is properly raised, it is difficult to conceive in what respect any prejudicial error has been shown. The most that can be said in support of appellant's position is that there was some interruption of the proceedings of the trial by the inopportune arrest and arraignment upon another charge, or upon the same charge presented in another form. It is not claimed that the arrest and arraignment during the trial operated as an acquittal upon the charge for which he was being tried, nor do we think it had that effect. The mere irregularity of an interruption of the proceedings by an arrest and placing him in custody could not have harmed the appellant in his rights in the case for which he was on trial. He was not taken away from court while the trial was proceeding. He was deprived of no opportunity to meet his accusers face to face, or to make a full defense to the charge against him. Had he incurred a jeopardy under the new charge, as by being required to proceed with both trials at once, a different question might arise;...
To continue reading
Request your trial