Stanford v. State
| Decision Date | 02 January 1899 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | WILLIAM R. K. STANFORD v. STATE OF MISSISSIPPI |
November, 1898
FROM the circuit court of Lauderdale county, HON. GREEN B. HUDDLESTON, Judge.
This case was a prosecution of appellant, Stanford, for a misdemeanor--unlawful cohabitation. The indictment was not marked filed by the clerk at the term of court at which it was found, as required by code 1892, § 1346. At the next following subsequent term, the court permitted the clerk to mark it filed. A motion to quash the indictment was interposed, on the ground that there was no legal evidence identifying it, which motion the court below overruled. The trial resulted in the conviction of Stanford, from which he appeals.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
F. V. Brahan, for appellant.
The objection to the indictment was properly raised, by motion to quash, and it should have been sustained. Section 1355 annotated code, 1892.
There can be no legal evidence of the finding and presenting to the court of an indictment, except it be marked filed, dated and signed by the clerk. Section 1346, code of 1892.
Sections 26 and 27 of the constitution are mandatory as to prosecutions by indictment or information, and the law provides what is necessary to give validity to indictments. Smith v. State, 58 Miss. 867; Cooper v. State, 59 Miss. 267; Holland v. State, 60 Miss. 939; Williamson v. State, 64 Miss. 229.
Wiley N. Nash, attorney-general, for the appellee.
The "marking" the indictment filed, dating it, and signing the entries on it, by the clerk, are made, by § 1346 of code of 1892, the exclusive "legal evidence of the finding and presentation of the indictment." This was not done in this case, at the term at which the alleged indictment was found. Ita lex scripta est. The demurrer should have been sustained.
Judgment reversed, indictment quashed and cause remanded. Appellant will be held to answer such new indictment as the grand jury may prefer against him.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pruitt v. State
... ... 53] defective. The indictment was not signed by the foreman ... of the grand jury in any manner or form and no attempt at ... correcting this fatal error was made ... Section ... 1174, Hemingway Mississippi Code, 1917; Stanford v ... State, 76 Miss. 257, 24 So. 536; Easterling v ... State, 35 Miss. 210; Fitzcox v. State, 52 Miss ... 923; Jackson v. State, 55 Miss. 530; Cochran v ... Commonwealth, 275 S.W. 810, 210 Ky. 332; Bowilvey v ... Commonwealth, 19 S.W. 1086, 230 Ky. 387; Banks v ... State, ... ...
-
Chapman v. State
...to be that of a deputy or assistant circuit court clerk. In Wilson v. State , 904 So.2d 987, 996 (Miss. 2004) (citing Stanford v. State , 76 Miss 257, 24 So. 536 (1899) ), this Court held that "the filing of an indictment, the dating of it and signing on the entry by the circuit clerk is th......
-
Valentine v. State
...such an indictment and the demurrer should be sustained." Jones v. State , 356 So. 2d 1182, 1183 (Miss. 1978) (citing Stanford v. State , 76 Miss. 257, 24 So. 536 (1899) (Miss. Code (1892) § 1346)). But we have held also that "an objection that a foreman of a grand jury did not endorse the ......
-
Wilson v. State, No. 2003-KA-02416-SCT.
...and therefore was incomplete. He claims the indictment should be quashed and his conviction reversed, referring us to Stanford v. State, 76 Miss. 257, 24 So. 536 (1899). ¶ 27. This Court has held, however, that an indictment which was not marked "filed" was procedurally defective, and objec......