Pehlman v. State

• Decision Date: 12 June 1888
• Citation: 17 N.E. 270,115 Ind. 131
• Parties: Pehlman v. State.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

115 Ind. 131

17 N.E. 270

Pehlman

v.State.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 12, 1888.

Appeal from circuit court, Tippecanoe county; William C. Wilson, Judge.

Louis Pehlman was prosecuted upon affidavit and information by the state of Indiana for receiving stolen goods knowing them to be stolen. Verdict of guilty, and Pehlman appeals.

John F. McHugh, for appellant. Geo. P. Haywood and The Attorney General, for appellee.

Niblack, C. J.

This was a prosecution upon affidavit and information against Louis Pehlman, for purchasing and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen. Rev. St. 1881, § 1935. A jury was impaneled to try the cause. After the cause had been submitted to the jury, it was agreed between the prosecuting atorney and counsel for Pehlman, in the presence and with the assent of the court, that if there should be an agreement upon a verdict after 10 o'clock that night, and before 9 o'clock next morning, the jury might seal up their verdict, place it in the hands of their foreman, and then temporarily separate. The next morning, about 5 o'clock, the jury agreed upon a verdict finding Pehlman guilty as charged, fixing his punishment at a fine of one dollar, and imprisonment in the state's prison for one year, and disfranchisement for a blank term of years. This verdict was signed, sealed up, and taken charge of by the foreman, after which the jury separated. When the court met at 9 o'clock on the same morning, the jury had reassembled, and were in their appropriate places in the court-room. Upon inquiry, they responded that they had agreed upon a verdict, and delivered the verdict to which they had agreed as above to the court. After an inspection of the verdict, the court called the attention of the jury to the fact that it was defective in its failure to specify the time for which Pehlman should be disfranchised, and upon its own motion returned the verdict to the jury, directing them to again retire to their room to consider and correct their verdict. Over the objection and exception of Pehlman, the jury accordingly retired, and soon after returned into court their amended verdict, fixing the term of his disfranchisement at two years. Pehlman thereupon moved the court for his discharge, upon the ground that he had been practically twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense; and upon the further ground that, as the jury had separated after agreeing upon a verdict, they had no power either to amend their verdict or to return another verdict. His motion was, nevertheless, overruled. Other motions designed to test the legality of the proceedings of the...