Richmond v. State
| Decision Date | 06 August 1884 |
| Citation | 20 N.W. 282,16 Neb. 388 |
| Parties | RICHMOND v. STATE. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error from Cass county.A. N. Sullivan and Marquette, Deweese & Hall, for plaintiff.
The Attorney General and J. B. Strode, for defendant.
The plaintiff was indicted for rape, and also for an assault with intent to commit rape, on the person of Carrie E. N. Grensel, and was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years. The offense is alleged to have been committed on the fourth day of November, 1883, and the trial was commenced on the fifteenth of the following December. The attorneys for the plaintiff filed a motion, supported by affidavits of leading citizens of Plattsmouth, for a change of venue. The motion was overruled, to which the plaintiff excepted, and now assigns the same for error.
A very large number of affidavits in support of and against the motion were filed, a few of which will be noticed.
Albert N. Sullivan, one of the plaintiff's attorneys, in his affidavits states in substance that he has been a resident of Cass county for more than 14 years, and of Plattsmouth for 6; that as attorney for the plaintiff he attended the county judge's office for the examination of the accused on the fifth of November, 1883; that about 10 o'clock A. M. of that day he ascertained that a very bitter feeling existed against the plaintiff; that he was informed that if an examination was attempted the crowd around the court-house would lynch the accused, and that the conduct and appearance of the crowd convinced him that these statements were true, and for that reason alone the affiant, on behalf of the accused, waived an examination; that the feeling against the accused in Plattsmouth is very intense, and such as to preclude a fair and impartial trial at that place. The portion of his affidavit relating to the excitement and threats of the crowd is not directly denied.
J. W. Marshall, the postmaster at Plattsmouth, who has held that position for more than 20 years, states that he knows that the people of said city and its vicinity generally are very strongly prejudiced against him, (the plaintiff;) that since he waived examination in the county court and was committed to jail, a belief of his guilt of the crime charged is generally entertained by the people in said city, an the county as well, and that by reason of the intensity of the bias, prejudice, and hatred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Husman
...inquiry into the merits of the controversy. State v. Nash, 7 Iowa 347; State v. Crafton, 89 Iowa 109, 56 N.W. 257;Richmond v. State, 16 Neb. 388, 20 N.W. 282;People v. Suesser, 132 Cal. 631, 64 P. 1095;Jamison v. People, 145 Ill. 357, 34 N.E. 486. If the loss and suffering caused by this ba......
-
State v. Husman
...inquiry into the merits of the controversy. State v. Nash, 7 Iowa 347; State v. Crafton, 89 Iowa 109; 56 N.W. 257; Richmond v. State, 16 Neb. 388, 20 N.W. 282; People v. Suesser, 132 Cal. 631, 64 P. 1095; Jamison v. People, 145 Ill. 357, 34 N.E. 486. If the loss and suffering caused by this......
-
Welsh v. State
...the prisoner, argued that upon the record it was apparent that the prisoner could not have a fair trial in Holt county, citing Richmond v. State, 16 Neb. 391. said that the case of Richmond v. State was a judicial maverick. No one could interpret its meaning. By and by some court would lari......
-
State v. Perkins
...inquiry into the merits of the controversy. State v. Nash, 7 Iowa, 347; State v. Crafton, 89 Iowa 109, 56 N.W. 257; Richmond v. State, 16 Neb. 388, 20 N.W. 282; People v. Suesser, 132 Cal. 631, 64 Pac. 1095; Jamison v. People, 145 Ill. 357, 34 N.E. 486. If the loss and suffering caused by t......