Johns v. The State
| Decision Date | 05 January 1886 |
| Docket Number | 12,462 |
| Citation | 4 N.E. 153,104 Ind. 557 |
| Parties | Johns v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Petition for a Rehearing Overruled March 25, 1886.
From the Clay Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
J. A McNutt, for appellant.
F. T Hord, Attorney General, and W. B. Hord, for the State.
Appellant was convicted before a justice of the peace upon a charge of having obstructed a public highway. He appealed to the circuit court, where he was again convicted. From that judgment he has appealed to this court. It is recited in the transcript made by the justice of the peace that appellant was arrested and brought into court, and that the cause was tried. In the transcript of the proceedings in the circuit court, it is shown that he appeared in person and by counsel, and that the cause was tried by a jury. The record, however, does not show affirmatively that he was arraigned, nor that he pleaded to the affidavit in either court. For this reason he insists that the judgment should be reversed.
Section 1762, R. S. 1881, provides that the defendant in a criminal case shall be arraigned by the reading of the indictment or information to him by the clerk, unless he waives the reading, and shall then be required to plead immediately thereto; but the court, for cause shown, may grant further time to answer.
Section 1763 provides, that in all criminal prosecutions, except in cases where the defence of insanity is relied upon, the defendant may plead the general issue orally, which shall be entered on the minutes of the court, etc.
Section 1766 provides, that if the defendant stands mute, or refuses to plead, etc., a plea of not guilty must be entered by the court, etc. These sections are the same in substance as sections 96, 97, and 98, 2 R. S. 1876, p. 398. The rulings under these sections have been that a trial without an arraignment, unless waived, and without a plea, is erroneous; and the record must show affirmatively that the defendant was arraigned, or waived it, and that he pleaded to the indictment or information, or, standing mute and refusing to answer, a plea was entered for him by the court. McJunkins v. State, 10 Ind. 140; Graeter v. State, 54 Ind. 159; Fletcher v. State, 54 Ind. 462; Tindall v. State, 71 Ind. 314; Shoffner v. State, 93 Ind. 519.
The above statutes and decisions have reference to the practice in the circuit and criminal courts, and have no reference to the practice before justices of the peace, unless there is some other statute under which the above are made applicable in such courts. We know of no such statute. We are referred to section 1456, R. S. 1881, but that section has reference to the practice in civil, and not in criminal, cases before justices of the peace. There is no statute which, in affirmative terms, requires either an arraignment or a plea in criminal cases in these courts.
Section 1628 is as follows: "When the officer holding the warrant arrests the accused, he shall take him before the justice of the peace; and it shall be the duty of such justice to docket the cause as in civil cases, and to hear the cause, and either acquit, convict and punish, or hold to bail, the offender, or if the offence be not bailable, commit him to jail, as the facts and the law may justify." There are other sections providing that if the offence charged is a misdemeanor, and one that the justice of the peace has jurisdiction to punish, a jury may be demanded, etc., but none of them provide in express terms for an arraignment, nor for a plea.
May such a case, then, be tried before a justice of the peace without an arraignment or plea? The pleading and practice in justices' courts are not very formal or exact. The failure to arraign an accused in one of these courts would not be such an omission as would justify this court in reversing a judgment of conviction, especially if he has had an opportunity to examine the charge against him, or has interposed a plea.
Aside from any express statutory provisions, a proper practice requires that before proceeding to trial in one of these courts upon a criminal charge, the accused should be given the opportunity and be required to enter a plea of guilty, or interpose a plea of not guilty, so as to form an issue for trial. Especially is this so in cases where the justice has jurisdiction to dispose of the case upon its merits, and is not sitting simply as an examining magistrate.
The above cases hold that a trial in a criminal case without a plea is erroneous, because it is a trial without an issue. There is no reason why the doctrine of these cases should not be applied in the trial of criminal charges before justices of the peace. The reason for the holdings obtains equally, whether the trial is before a justice of the peace or in one of the courts of superior jurisdiction.
It would also be a better and safer practice for the justice to enter the plea upon his docket as a part of the proceedings in the case, but there is no statute requiring such an entry, as there is where such cases are tried in courts of superior jurisdiction. If, in fact, the plea of not guilty is interposed by the accused, the failure of the justice to enter it upon his records would not be sufficient cause for a reversal of the judgment by this court.
It is the duty of the justice to require a plea before proceeding to the trial of a criminal charge. It must be presumed that in the trial of such causes the justice performs his duty, and when nothing to the contrary appears, it will be presumed that a plea was required and interposed. This court must presume in favor of the regularity and validity of the proceedings of the lower courts until the contrary is made to appear by the record. Shoffner v. State, supra; Crowell v. City of Peru, 41 Ind. 308; Bowen v. Pollard, 71 Ind. 177; Puett v. Beard, 86 Ind. 104; Powers v. State, 87 Ind. 144; Drinkout v. Eagle Machine Works, 90 Ind. 423; City of Indianapolis v. Murphy, 91 Ind. 382; Brown v. Anderson, 90 Ind. 93; Houk v. Barthold, 73 Ind. 21.
When it appears that inferior courts...
To continue reading
Request your trial