State v. Emery

• Citation: 68 Vt. 109,34 A. 432
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
• Decision Date: 17 March 1896
• Parties: STATE v. EMERY et al.

34 A. 432

68 Vt. 109

STATE

v. EMERY et al.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Franklin.

March 17, 1896.

Exceptions from Franklin county court; Loveland Munson, Judge.

Albert Emery and another were indicted for larceny. Verdict of guilty, and they except Judgment on verdict.

The respondents were indicted jointly for the larceny of certain clothing exposed for drying. At the April term, 1895, informations had been filed against the respondents, charging them with the larceny of clothing from several different persons, but not from the one named in this indictment. The prosecution then knew of the larceny for which the indictment was found. At the aforesaid April term the respondents pleaded guilty to the informations, and were sentenced to six months in the house of correction. They claimed that the plea in those cases was entered upon the understanding with the state's attorney that no further prosecution should be had. They offered to show: "First That on the 13th day of December, 1891, their premises were searched, and various articles of property were found in their possession, belonging to several persons other than themselves, among whom was the person named in this indictment and the property therein named; that complaints and warrants were issued against them for all the articles found in their possession; that the respondents pleaded guilty to each of said complaints, and desired to have all matters disposed of; that they were bound over for their appearance before the county court, and committed to jail, where they remained until the April term of the Franklin county court, 1895. Second. That at said term an arrangement was made with the state's attorney whereby an information should be by him filed against these respondents, charging them with the crime of which they were charged in the complaints aforesaid, to which information these respondents were to plead guilty, under the promise that such action on their part would fully settle and end all state cases then pending against them in relation to the property so found in their possession; and, relying on said promises, these respondents did plead guilty to said information, and were sentenced by said court to serve six months in the house of correction, at Rutland, which these respondents had served to the full satisfaction of the law; and, further, that the offense charged in this indictment is one of the offenses which these respondents were told should be merged in the information to which t...