State v. O'Donnell

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
Writing for the CourtVIRGIN, J.
Citation81 Me. 271,17 A. 66
PartiesSTATE v. O'DONNELL.
Decision Date22 January 1889
17 A. 66
81 Me. 271

STATE
v.
O'DONNELL.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Jan. 22, 1889.


Exceptions from superior court, Cumberland county.

Indictment against Peter O'Donnell for a liquor nuisance. By clerical error the allegation of time covered by said offense was made to read, "on the fifteenth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seven, and on divers other days," etc., when it should have read, "on the fifteenth day of May, A. D. 1887." Testimony was limited to the period of time from the 15th day of May, 1887, to the time of the finding of said indictment; a nol. pros. having been entered as to all time prior to the 15th day of May, A. D. 1887. At the request of the defendant, the case was withdrawn from the jury after the government testimony had been put in, and the court allowed him to file a demurrer.

W. H. Looney and C. W. Goddard, for defendant. G. M. Seiders, Co. Atty., for the State.

VIRGIN, J. An indictment must allege a particular day on which the offense was committed, even if it be set out with a continando. Wells v. Com., 12 Gray. 326; Shorey v. Chandler, 80 Me. 409, 15 Atl. Rep. 223; State v. Small, 80 Me. 452, 14 Atl. Rep. 942. The indictment in hand fixes the day at a date 13 years before Maine became a sovereign state, and more than 40 years before the enactment of the statute which created the offense charged, and is practically an impossible date, and hence no date. Moreover, the nol. pros. struck out the allegation of any date except these days named in the continuando, which leaves the indictment fatally defective on demurrer, as was decided in the cases above cited. Exceptions sustained.

PETERS, C. J., and WALTON, DANFORTH, EMERY, and HASKELL, JJ., concurred.

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 practice notes
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 18, 1938
    ...244, 6 Ann.Cas. 851; Walters v. State, 5 Iowa 507; Commonwealth v. Aultmire, 58 S.W. 369, 22 Ky.Law Rep. 511; State v. O'Donnell, 81 Me. 271, 17 A. 66; Serpentine v. State, 1 How., Miss., 256; Markley v. State, 10 Mo. 291; State v. Pratt, 14 N.H. 456; State v. Jones, 8 N.J.L. 307; State v. ......
  • Hunt v. State , No. 24606.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 6, 1927
    ...before the enactment of the statute creating the offense, has been held to be an impossible date or no date at all. State v. O'Donnell, 81 Me. 271, 17 A. 66. Where two dates appear in an indictment, one of which is correct, and one of which is impossible and apparently a clerical error, the......
  • Terrell v. State, No. 20,474.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 2, 1905
    ...Criminal Law, § 131. See, also, Commonwealth v. Doyle, 110 Mass. 103;State v. Sexton, 10 N. C. 184, 14 Am. Dec. 584;State v. O'Donnell, 81 Me. 271, 17 Atl. 66;Markley v. State, 10 Mo. 291;State v. Smith, 88 Iowa, 178, 55 N. W. 198;McJunkins v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 117, 38 S. W. 994;Dickson......
  • Hunt v. State, 24,606
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 6, 1927
    ...the enactment of the statute creating the offense has been held to be an impossible date or no date at all; State v. O'Donnell (1889), 81 Me. 271, 17 A. 66. Where two dates appear in an indictment, one of which is correct and one of which is impossible and apparently a clerical error, the i......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
16 cases
  • Wilson v. State
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • October 18, 1938
    ...244, 6 Ann.Cas. 851; Walters v. State, 5 Iowa 507; Commonwealth v. Aultmire, 58 S.W. 369, 22 Ky.Law Rep. 511; State v. O'Donnell, 81 Me. 271, 17 A. 66; Serpentine v. State, 1 How., Miss., 256; Markley v. State, 10 Mo. 291; State v. Pratt, 14 N.H. 456; State v. Jones, 8 N.J.L. 307; State v. ......
  • Hunt v. State , No. 24606.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 6, 1927
    ...before the enactment of the statute creating the offense, has been held to be an impossible date or no date at all. State v. O'Donnell, 81 Me. 271, 17 A. 66. Where two dates appear in an indictment, one of which is correct, and one of which is impossible and apparently a clerical error, the......
  • Terrell v. State, No. 20,474.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 2, 1905
    ...Criminal Law, § 131. See, also, Commonwealth v. Doyle, 110 Mass. 103;State v. Sexton, 10 N. C. 184, 14 Am. Dec. 584;State v. O'Donnell, 81 Me. 271, 17 Atl. 66;Markley v. State, 10 Mo. 291;State v. Smith, 88 Iowa, 178, 55 N. W. 198;McJunkins v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 117, 38 S. W. 994;Dickson......
  • Hunt v. State, 24,606
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 6, 1927
    ...the enactment of the statute creating the offense has been held to be an impossible date or no date at all; State v. O'Donnell (1889), 81 Me. 271, 17 A. 66. Where two dates appear in an indictment, one of which is correct and one of which is impossible and apparently a clerical error, the i......
  • 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