State v. Buntin

Citation123 Ind. 124, 23 N.E. 1140
Case DateApril 04, 1890
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

123 Ind. 124
23 N.E. 1140

State
v.
Buntin.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 4, 1890.


Appeal from circuit court, Boone county; J. A. Abbott, Judge.


L. T. Michener, Atty. Gen., and C. M. Zion, Pros. Atty., for appellant.

Berkshire, J.

This is an appeal by the state. The court below quashed the indictment. The appellee files no brief. We learn from the appellant's counsel that the indictment was quashed because of the absence

[23 N.E. 1141]

of the words “A true bill” on the back of the indictment. Upon an examination of the record, we learn that the foreman of the grand jury indorsed his name upon the back of the indictment, but nowhere do the words “A true bill” appear. The statute (section 1669) requires that the prosecuting attorney sign the indictment, and that it be indorsed “A true bill,” and the foreman's name subscribed thereon. This statute is imperative. Section 1670 provides that, as soon as the indictment has been returned into court, it shall be the duty of the judge to examine it, and, if the foreman has neglected to indorse it “A true bill,” with his name signed thereto, that the court must cause the foreman to so indorse it. In the absence of the indorsement which the statute imperatively requires, the indictment is bad, and, as it is an infirmity which appears on the face of the record, may be taken advantage of by a motion to quash. The court committed no error in quashing the indictment. Johnson v. State, 23 Ind. 32;Heacock v. State, 42 Ind. 393;Cooper v. State, 79 Ind. 206;State v. Bowman, 103 Ind. 69, 2 N. E. Rep. 289; Gillett, Crim. Law, § 116. We do not regard Beard v. State, 57 Ind. 8, to the contrary. In that case the indictment was returned to the Posey circuit court, and on change of venue the case was transferred to the Vanderburgh circuit court. The transcript, as made and forwarded by the clerk of the Posey circuit court, failed to show the proper indorsement on the indictment, but the court held that the original indictment was a part of the record, and, as it appeared to be properly indorsed, the court properly overruled the motion to quash. In passing upon the question the judge who wrote the opinion incidentally remarked that the defect in the transcript could not be reached by a motion to quash the indictment. The judgment of the court...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • State v. Heft,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1912
    ...quash on this ground should be sustained are, of course, not here in point. See Cole v. State, 169 Ind. 393, 82 N. E. 796;State v. Buntin, 123 Ind. 124, 23 N. E. 1140. [5] 3. Four members of the panel called in the selection of jurors were challenged for cause by the defendant, and the acti......
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 30, 1968
    ...Ind, 354, 11 N.E. 357 is not in point for in the instant case there is an indorsement, and appellant's citation of State v. Buntin (1889), 123 Ind. 124, 33 N.E. 1140 is not applicable since the indictment here does contain the words 'a true For all the foregoing reasons we hold that the cas......
  • State v. Heft
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1912
    ...on this ground should be sustained are, of course, not here in point. See Cole v. State, 169 Ind. 393 (82 N.E. 796); State v. Buntin, 123 Ind. 124 (23 N.E. 1140). III. Four members of the panel called in the selection of jurors were challenged for cause by the defendant, and the action of t......
  • Hamilton v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 21, 1898
    ...motion to quash would have been well taken. Strange v. State, 110 Ind. 354, 11 N. E. 357, and authorities there cited; State v. Buntin, 123 Ind. 124, 23 N. E. 1140. But, unfortunately for appellant's insistence, the record, as it comes to us, does show that the indictment is properly indors......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • State v. Heft,
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1912
    ...quash on this ground should be sustained are, of course, not here in point. See Cole v. State, 169 Ind. 393, 82 N. E. 796;State v. Buntin, 123 Ind. 124, 23 N. E. 1140. [5] 3. Four members of the panel called in the selection of jurors were challenged for cause by the defendant, and the acti......
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 30, 1968
    ...Ind, 354, 11 N.E. 357 is not in point for in the instant case there is an indorsement, and appellant's citation of State v. Buntin (1889), 123 Ind. 124, 33 N.E. 1140 is not applicable since the indictment here does contain the words 'a true For all the foregoing reasons we hold that the cas......
  • State v. Heft
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 5, 1912
    ...on this ground should be sustained are, of course, not here in point. See Cole v. State, 169 Ind. 393 (82 N.E. 796); State v. Buntin, 123 Ind. 124 (23 N.E. 1140). III. Four members of the panel called in the selection of jurors were challenged for cause by the defendant, and the action of t......
  • Hamilton v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 21, 1898
    ...motion to quash would have been well taken. Strange v. State, 110 Ind. 354, 11 N. E. 357, and authorities there cited; State v. Buntin, 123 Ind. 124, 23 N. E. 1140. But, unfortunately for appellant's insistence, the record, as it comes to us, does show that the indictment is properly indors......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT