State v. Ayers

• Decision Date: 24 April 1896
• Parties: STATE v. AYERS.
• Court: South Dakota Supreme Court

8 S.D. 517

67 N.W. 611

STATE

v.AYERS.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

April 24, 1896.

Error to circuit court, Beadle county; J. O. Andrews, Judge.

Charles Ayers was prosecuted for and found guilty of the crime of seduction. From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings error. Affirmed.T. H. Null and F. E. Grant, for plaintiff in error. John Wood, for the State.

FULLER, J.

Upon a valid and duly verified information traversed by a plea of not guilty, plaintiff in error was prosecuted for and found guilty of the crime of seduction under a promise of marriage, and from a judgment of conviction error is brought to this court.

It is said that chapter 64, Laws 1895, authorizing prosecutions upon information, embraces more than one subject, and therefore contravenes section 21, art. 3, of our constitution,¹ and that the provisions of the statute are unauthorized and void, under section 10 of article 6, which provides “that the grand jury may be modified or abolished by law.” No claim is made that the subject of the act is not clearly expressed in the title, or that the numerous sections of the statute are in any manner inconsistent therewith. To effect a specific and clearly defined change in criminal procedure is the sole object and purpose of the act; and all its auxiliary provision are merely incidental to the single subject, namely, to authorize the several courts of the state “to hear, try and determine prosecutions upon information, for crimes, misdemeanors and offenses” heretofore triable in the circuit court upon indictment only. In order to confer such power the system is so modified that the court may in its discretion proceed without the aid of a grand jury. The subject being single, the provisions to fully accomplish the object involved may be multifarious. Suth. St. Const. p. 93; State v. Morgan, 2 S. D. 32, 48 N. W. 314;State v. Becker, 3 S. D. 29, 51 N. W. 1018. In our opinion the act is safely within the constitutional provision by which the legislature is expressly authorized to modify or abolish the grand jury.

1. Const. art. 3, § 21, provides that “no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in the title.”