State v. Hopper

• Decision Date: 20 December 1892
• Docket Number: 16,724
• Citation: 32 N.E. 878,133 Ind. 460
• Parties: The State v. Hopper
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

32 N.E. 878

133 Ind. 460

The State v. Hopper

No. 16,724

Supreme Court of Indiana

December 20, 1892

From the Harrison Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with directions to overrule the motion of the appellee to quash the indictment.

C. W Cook, for appellant.

W. N Tracewell, R. J. Tracewell and G. W. Self, for appellee.

OPINION

Coffey, J.

The appellee was indicted in the Harrison Circuit Court, upon a charge of perjury. The court, upon motion of the appellee, quashed the indictment, and the State, by her prosecutor, excepted. Omitting the caption, the indictment in question is as follows:

"The grand jurors for Harrison county, State of Indiana, upon their oaths, present and charge that on the 7th day of April, 1890, at said county, a general election was held pursuant to law, and on that day such election was had and held in Blue River township, in said county, at the voting precinct in said township, for the purpose of electing township officers; that, then and there, one William Cephus Bray did unlawfully offer to vote, and said Bray was then and there duly challenged as unqualified to vote at said election, by a qualified voter of said precinct and township; that thereupon said William Cephus Bray did insist upon voting, and the said challenge not being withdrawn, the inspector of said election, one John A. Harrell, then and there administered to said Bray the usual and proper oath, as is required by law in such cases made and provided; that thereupon Isaac J. Hopper--a qualified voter of said precinct, a freeholder and householder thereof for one year then next preceding, for the purpose of enabling said William Cephus Bray, then and there to vote--did then and there make oath and was solemnly sworn to an affidavit of the following tenor:

"State of Indiana, ___ county, ss:

"I, Isaac Hopper, do swear that I am a qualified voter of this precinct, and that I have been a freeholder and a resident householder in this precinct, for one year next preceding this election, and that I know William Bray who now desires to vote has resided in this State for six months immediately preceding this election; that he has resided in this township sixty days, and in this precinct thirty days, and is now a bona fide resident of this precinct.

"Isaac J. Hopper.

"Subscribed and sworn to before me, this 7th day of April, 1890.

"J. A. Harrell."

"That said J. A. Harrell was then and there John A. Harrell, who was then and there the inspector of said election; that said William Bray, mentioned in said affidavit, was, and is, the same William Cephus Bray who was challenged as aforesaid; that said William Cephus Bray did not then and there have the legal qualifications of a voter in this, to wit: that he, the said William Cephus Bray, was not then and there a resident of said township and precinct; that the said Isaac J. Hopper did then and there willfully, corruptly and falsely and voluntarily make said affidavit before said John A. Harrell, inspector of said election as aforesaid, in the manner and for the purpose aforesaid, whereas in truth and in fact, as the said Isaac J. Hopper then and there well knew, said William Cephus Bray was not then and there a resident of said township and precinct; and so the grand jurors aforesaid, on their oaths aforesaid, do present and charge that the said Isaac J. Hopper, in manner and form aforesaid, and at the time and place aforesaid, did feloniously, willfully, corruptly, voluntarily, and falsely commit willful and corrupt perjury, contrary," etc.

The affidavit upon which the charge of perjury is predicated, being an affidavit required by law, the indictment under consideration is based upon section 2006, R. S. 1881, which provides that, "Whoever having taken a lawful oath or affirmation in any matter in which, by law, an oath or affirmation may be required, shall, upon such oath or affirmation, swear or affirm willfully, corruptly, and falsely touching any matter material to the point in question, shall be deemed guilty of perjury, contrary," etc.

Many objections to the sufficiency of this indictment are urged by the appellee, all of which we will consider in the order in which they are made.

It is first contended that no valid indictment could be predicated on the affidavit in question, for the reason that such affidavit contains no venue.

This, in our opinion, is not a valid objection. It is alleged in the indictment that the affidavit was made at Harrison county, Indiana. As to whether the affidavit was sufficient to accomplish the object for which it was intended is not a material question. State v. Flagg, 27 Ind. 24.

Nor is the objection...