McGraw v. State
| Citation | 128 So. 875,157 Miss. 675 |
| Decision Date | 09 June 1930 |
| Docket Number | 28392 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | MCGRAW et al. v. STATE |
(Division A.)
1. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
It is not permissible to charge person with two unrelated crimes imposing different punishment, in same count of indictment.
2. CRIMINAL LAW. Crime of obstructing justice is not constituent part of crime of removing property subject to lien, and they are not same offense (Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 1039, 1087).
Code 1906, section 1260 (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1039) prohibits removal from state of personal property under written pledge, mortgage, or lien with intent to defraud pledgee, etc., and Code 1906, section 1300 (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1087) relating to obstructing justice, prohibits removal of property which has been levied on by virtue of legal process.
3. INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION Indictment charging defendants with fraudulently moving out of state truck in sheriff's hands under levy made in landlord's lien proceeding held bad for duplicity (Hemingway's Code 1927, sections 1039, 1087).
The indictment charged in substance that defendants willfully and fraudulently moved certain Ford truck out of state to place beyond jurisdiction of state, which property was in hands of sheriff under terms of certain levy made by sheriff in landlord's lien proceeding instituted by one T., who held certain landlord's lien on truck, and that removal of truck was with willful and fraudulent intent to defraud T. as well as the sheriff.
APPEAL from circuit court of Simpson county, HON. W. L. CRANFORD, Judge.
Wesley McGraw and another were convicted on a misdemeanor indictment, and they appeal. Reversed, and defendants discharged.
Reversed, and appellant discharged.
A. M. Edwards, of Mendenhall, for appellants.
When an indictment contains but one count, only one offense can be charged, and this charge must be definite and unambiguous.
Montgomery v. State, 107 Miss. 518, 65 So. 572.
An indictment must charge the acts constituting the offense directly, clearly, and precisely, and not argumentatively, inferentially, or by the process of exclusion.
Harkness v. State, 95 Miss. 506, 48 So. 294.
It will be noted in the case at bar that the indictment is in one count, and we submit that there are two offenses attempted to be charged in said indictment, one of which is under section 1039, Hemingway's Code 1927, and the other under section 1087.
George T. Mitchell, Attorney-General, and W. A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.
A statute often makes punishable the doing of one thing, or another, sometimes thus specifying a considerable number of things. Then, by proper and ordinary construction, a person who in one transaction does all, violates the statute but once, and incurs only one penalty. Yet he violates it equally by doing any one of the things. Therefore, the indictment on statute may allege, in a single count, that the defendant did as many of the forbidden things as the pleader chooses, employing the conjunction "and" where the statute has "or" and it will not be double.
1 Bishop Criminal Proc., sec. 436; Coleman v. State, 94 Miss. 860, 48 So. 181; State v. Freeman, 90 Miss. 315, 43 So. 289; State v. Walker, 41 So. 8; State v. Rees, 76 Miss. 435, 22 So. 829; Avant v. State, 71 Miss. 78, 13 So. 881; Jimmerson v. State, 93 Miss. 685, 46 So. 948; Montgomery v. State, 107 Miss. 518, 65 So. 572; Brady v. State, 128 Miss. 575, 91 So. 277; State v. Sam, 154 Miss. 14, 122 So. 101; Vol. 10 of the Enc. of Plea. & Prac., p. 490; Miller v. State, 103 Miss. 730, 95 So. 830; Section 26, Mississippi Constitution 1890; Graves v. State, 134 Miss. 547, 99 So. 364; State v. Burton, 145 Miss. 821, 111 So. 300; Stapleton v. State, 130 Miss. 737, 95 So. 86; Pruitt v. State, 116 Miss. 33, 76 So. 761.
Argued orally by A. K. Edwards, of Mendenhall, for appellant, and by W. A. Shipman, Assistant Attorney-General, for appellee.
On a misdemeanor indictment the appellants were jointly tried before a jury, convicted, and thereupon sentenced by the court to pay a fine, and to imprisonment in the county jail, from which judgment they appeal to this court.
We shall confine ourselves to one assignment of error urged by appellants here, to-wit, that the court below erred in overruling the demurrer to the indictment. The attorney-general concedes that the indictment is defective because of duplicity, and in the brief filed by him in this case he reviews, to some extent, the authorities on the subject. The material part of the indictment is in this language:
"Did then and there unlawfully, wilfully and fraudulently move or cause to be moved one certain Ford truck of the value of about two thousand five hundred dollars, a more perfect description of said truck is to the grand jurors unknown, from and out of the state of Mississippi to a place beyond the jurisdiction of this state and into the state of Louisiana which property was then and there in the hands of J. D. Smith, sheriff of said Simpson, by and under the terms of a certain levy so made by said sheriff in a certain landlord's lien proceeding so instituted by R. I. Tullos, who had and held a certain landlord's lien on said truck; that said removal of said truck was with the wilful and fraudulent intent to defraud the R. I. Tullos, as well as the said sheriff."
Section 1039, Hemingway's Code 1927, section 1260, Code 1906, is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Natchez Hotel Co.
...... defeat the lawful administration and legal distribution of. property in a sister state. We should not interfere more than. possible with the property of citizens of other states, or. the jurisdiction of their courts. . . ......
-
Stinson v. State, 53953
...of this State under the facts of this case." The state argues the sole authority for the Woods decision was McGraw v. State, 157 Miss. 675, 128 So. 875 (1930) which dealt with duplicity rather than a multicount indictment. In McGraw we In this state it is not permitted to charge a person wi......
- Davis v. State
- Davis v. State.