State v. Brownrigg
| Decision Date | 07 May 1895 |
| Citation | 33 A. 11,87 Me. 500 |
| Parties | STATE v. BROWNRIGG. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
(Official.)
Exceptions from supreme judicial court, Waldo county.
Robert Brownrigg was indicted for maintaining a common nuisance, and his plea in bar, of a former conviction, being overruled, he brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.
W. T. C. Runnells, Co. Atty., for the State.
Joseph Williamson, Jr., for defendant.
At the April term, 1894, of this court for Waldo county, the defendant was indicted for keeping a common nuisance "on the 17th day of October, in the year of our Lord 1893, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the finding of this indictment."
The defendant seasonably pleaded in bar a previous conviction of the same offense, and offered in evidence the records of the court, showing that at the October term, 1893, of the court, for the same county, he was indicted for keeping a common nuisance at the same place "on the 1st day of May, in the year of our Lord 1893, and on divers other days and times between that day and the finding of this indictment." And a conviction, judgment, and sentence under this indictment.
The October term, 1893, for Waldo county, commenced on the 3d Tuesday (the 17th day) of October. It was further shown by a certificate of the clerk that this indictment was reported to the court by the grand jury on the 31st day of October. The justice presiding ruled, pro forma, that these facts did not sustain the plea.
The indictment relied upon by the defendant alleges the commission of the offense upon a particular day, and on divers other days and times between that day and the day of the finding of the indictment.
The first question, therefore, is, what is the day of the finding of an indictment? Although it is usual to entitle the caption of an indictment as of the first day of the term, this day cannot be regarded as of the day of the finding, because, among other reasons, it is well settled that a grand jury may consider and find an indictment for an offense committed after that date, but before the finding of the indictment. Com. v. Hines, 101 Mass. 33.
If the first day of a term should be considered as the day of the finding, there would be presented the inconsistency of a finding by a grand jury of the commission of an offense subsequent to the time of the finding.
The date of the finding of an indictment should be one that is capable of being definitely ascertained. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vizcon v. State
...of Count 30. See Bizzell v. State, 71 So.2d 735 (Fla.1954); Copsey v. State, 67 Md.App. 223, 507 A.2d 186 (1986); State v. Brownrigg, 87 Me. 500, 33 A. 11 (1895); Collins v. State, 489 So.2d 188, 189 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)(Cowart, J., dissenting). All these statements are accurate, in fact und......
-
Miller v. United States
...78 Vt. 157, 62 A. 48; State v. Osborne, 39 Wash. 548, 81 P. 1096; Com. v. Robinson, 165 Mass. 426, 43 N. E. 121, and State v. Brownrigg, 87 Me. 500, 33 A. 11. As to the second point, the testimony of the interne, Parges, merely disclosed conditions found by him when he examined the child. T......
-
State v. Terroni
... ... 351, which principle was declared in the State v. Brownrigg, ... 87 Me. 500, 502, 33 A. 11, and followed in State v. Peloquin, 106 Me. 358, 362, 76 A. 888 ... The indictment meets both the requirements of information and protection from double jeopardy fixed by Charette, supra, and there was no error in the denial of the motion in arrest ... ...
-
State v. McAninch
...20, 1878, from which it appears that the entire period of the first, and more, is, in terms, covered by the second. In State v. Brownrigg (Me.), 87 Me. 500, 33 A. 11, first indictment is, in terms, confined to the month of October, 1893. The second begins with the same month and goes to Apr......