State v. Harre, No. 508.

Docket NºNo. 508.
Citation195 A. 244
Case DateNovember 02, 1937
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont
195 A. 244

STATE
v.
HARRE.

No. 508.

Supreme Court of Vermont. Franklin.

Nov. 2, 1937.


195 A. 244

Appeal from Franklin Municipal Court; P. L. Shangraw, Judge.

Robert Harre was convicted in the Franklin Municipal Court of the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor, his motion in arrest of judgment was overruled, judgment was entered and sentence imposed, and accused appeals.

Judgment reversed, motion granted, and accused discharged.

Argued before POWERS, C. J., and SLACK, MOULTON, SHERBURNE, and BUTTLES, JJ.

W. K. Sullivan, State's Atty., of St. Albans, for the State. P. C. Warner, of St. Albans, for respondent.

SLACK, Justice.

This is a prosecution in the Franklin municipal court for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. The complaint was presented to the court January 8, 1937, by John H. Webster, the then state's attorney for Franklin county. A trial was had thereon by jury January 27, 1937, which resulted in a disagreement. Webster's term of office expired January 31, 1937, and the day following William K. Sullivan became state's attorney for said county. On February 8, 1937, he amended, or attempted to amend, the complaint by filing 33 additional counts, and later (when did not appear) entered a nolle prosequi as to those in the original complaint. Another trial by jury was had February 11, 1937. At the close of the state's evidence a nolle prosequi was entered as to seven of the new counts, a verdict was directed for the respondent on six others, he was found guilty on one (No. 20), and acquitted on nineteen.

He seasonably filed a motion in arrest of judgment on various grounds. This was overruled, judgment was entered, and sentence imposed.

It appears from the original complaint, and the amendment which are referred to in the exceptions, that the new counts art attached to the original complaint following the words, "Comes John H. Webster State's Attorney of the county aforesaid, in his proper person, and on his oath of office, makes complaint that Robert Harre of Richford in the county of Franklin, at Richford," in the first count thereof, as a continuation of such count; and that each succeeding count begins, "Comes the State's Attorney in his proper person," etc., without averring, directly or by reference to the original complaint or the preceding count, the county he represents. Following the new counts are the remaining parts of the original complaint, including the signature of Webster, as state's attorney for Franklin county, and none other. No one, in fact, signed the

195 A. 245

amendment, and it does not bear a minute of the day, month, or year when it was presented to the court, although the exceptions state that it was "filed" February 8, 1937.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • State v. Ball, No. 1275
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 2 d2 Outubro d2 1956
    ...the lower court's refusal to grant motions in arrest. State v. Rouillard, 107 Vt. 487, 490, 180 A. 890; State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 220, 195 A. 244; State v. Gosselin, 110 Vt. 361, 367, 6 A.2d 14. It would be fitting to adopt this procedure here since it is necessary to remand the case bec......
  • State v. Anderson, No. 1063
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 2 d2 Outubro d2 1956
    ...State v. Bruce, 68 Vt. 183, 186, 34 A. 701; State v. Donaldson, 101 Vt. 483, 486, 144 A. 684, and see State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 195 A. 244. Here the respondent was properly in Court under a proper information. Having pleaded to the amended information, he went to trial without objection.......
  • State v. Snyder, No. 1103
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 6 d3 Março d3 1963
    ...his oath of office. This defect deprived the municipal court of jurisdiction to entertain the amendment. State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 220, 195 A. 244; see also State v. Donaldson, 101 Vt. 483, 487, 144 A. The information in question specifies only the town of Westminster as the place where ......
  • Bustamante v. People, No. 18151
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 4 d1 Novembro d1 1957
    ...conviction based on an information requiring major amendment is void, for the court is without jurisdiction. State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 195 A. 244. It has been held that when an information is found to be defective in any respect that it is the better practice to make an entirely new one ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • State v. Ball, No. 1275
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 2 d2 Outubro d2 1956
    ...the lower court's refusal to grant motions in arrest. State v. Rouillard, 107 Vt. 487, 490, 180 A. 890; State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 220, 195 A. 244; State v. Gosselin, 110 Vt. 361, 367, 6 A.2d 14. It would be fitting to adopt this procedure here since it is necessary to remand the case bec......
  • State v. Anderson, No. 1063
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 2 d2 Outubro d2 1956
    ...State v. Bruce, 68 Vt. 183, 186, 34 A. 701; State v. Donaldson, 101 Vt. 483, 486, 144 A. 684, and see State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 195 A. 244. Here the respondent was properly in Court under a proper information. Having pleaded to the amended information, he went to trial without objection.......
  • State v. Snyder, No. 1103
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 6 d3 Março d3 1963
    ...his oath of office. This defect deprived the municipal court of jurisdiction to entertain the amendment. State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 220, 195 A. 244; see also State v. Donaldson, 101 Vt. 483, 487, 144 A. The information in question specifies only the town of Westminster as the place where ......
  • Bustamante v. People, No. 18151
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • 4 d1 Novembro d1 1957
    ...conviction based on an information requiring major amendment is void, for the court is without jurisdiction. State v. Harre, 109 Vt. 217, 195 A. 244. It has been held that when an information is found to be defective in any respect that it is the better practice to make an entirely new one ......
  • 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