State v. Gordon Ryea
| Decision Date | 05 October 1923 |
| Citation | 122 A. 422,97 Vt. 219 |
| Parties | STATE v. GORDON RYEA |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
May Term, 1923.
INFORMATION for lewdness and lascivious behavior. Plea, not guilty. Trial by jury in the city court of St. Albans, Nathan N. Post, Judge. Verdict and judgment of guilty. Motion to set aside verdict, and in arrest of judgment overruled. The respondent excepted. The opinion states the case.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded. The State may apply within a reasonable time for leave to amend the information failing which let judgment on the verdict be arrested.
C G. Austin & Sons for the respondent.
M. H. Alexander, State's attorney, for the State.
Present: WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, BUTLER, and SLACK, JJ.
The information charges that the respondent on the first day of May, 1921, and thereafter until the 31st day of January, 1923, was and is a lewd, wanton and lascivious person in speech and behavior, contrary to the form of the statute, etc. There was a trial by jury on a plea of not guilty, resulting in a conviction. After verdict and before judgment the respondent filed a written motion to set the verdict aside and arrest judgment thereon. The court overruled the motion, rendered judgment on the verdict, and passed sentence, to which ruling the respondent excepted. The motion is treated as an ordinary motion in arrest and we so treat it.
The grounds of the motion are that the information does not charge any crime, that it is uncertain, insufficient and indefinite and that it does not legally inform the respondent of the cause and nature of the accusation against him. He objects that the information does not allege any act that would constitute the offense attempted to be charged.
The statute on which this prosecution is based provides: "A person guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior shall be imprisoned not more than five years or fined not more than three hundred dollars." G. L. 7016. It does not define the crime with any particularity; but whether it creates a statutory offense, or merely fixes a penalty for the common law offense, it is unnecessary to consider. See State v. Millard, 18 Vt. 574 46 A. D. 170. The information is insufficient to withstand the motion whichever it may be. It follows a form given by Mr. Bishop in his "Directions and Forms;" but as there pointed out it is applicable to a statutory offense, which is described in the complaint in the language of the statute, and is manifestly inapplicable to the crime denounced by our statute. The information merely charges that the respondent was a person of the character described therein, for which there is no penalty in this State. To subject one to the penalty under our statute acts constituting open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior must have been committed.
One charged with a crime has the right guaranteed by the Constitution to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, which requires that the charge be set forth with such particularity as will reasonably indicate the exact offense with which he is charged....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re A.P.
...statute does not define ‘open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior.’ " Discola, 2018 VT 7, ¶ 20 ; see also State v. Ryea, 97 Vt. 219, 220, 122 A. 422, 422 (1923) (noting that statute "does not define the crime with any particularity"). And "we have declined to give it a precise defini......
-
In re James Greenough
...A. 102; State v. Barrell, 75 Vt. 202, 204, 54 A. 183, 98 Am St Rep 813; State v. Palmer, 94 Vt. 278, 281, 283, 110 A. 436; State v. Ryea, 97 Vt. 219, 221, 122 A. 422. What we have already said applies as well to the claim the crime alleged was in the disjunctive and that it alleges elements......
-
State v. Robert Harre
... ... ordered. [109 Vt. 221] State v. Rouillard, ... 107 Vt. 487, 180 A. 890; State v. Baker, ... 100 Vt. 380, 138 A. 736; State v. Ryea, 97 ... Vt. 219, 122 A. 422; State v. Palmer, 94 ... Vt. 278, 110 ... ...
-
In re K.A.
...the need for a specific description of the lewd act, something the Court found the statute itself did not provide. See also State v. Ryea, 97 Vt. 219, 220, 122 A. 422, 422 (1923) (noting prior law prohibiting “open and gross lewdness ... does not define the crime with any particularity”).¶ ......