State v. Joseph Louanis

• Decision Date: 10 January 1907
• Citation: 65 A. 532,79 Vt. 463
• Parties: STATE v. JOSEPH LOUANIS
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court

65 A. 532

79 Vt. 463

STATE v. JOSEPH LOUANIS

Supreme Court of Vermont

January 10, 1907

October Term, 1906.

INDICTMENT, under V. S. 4921, for threatening to accuse another person of a crime, with intent to extort money. Plea not guilty. Trial by jury at the June Term, 1906, Orange County, Tyler, J., presiding. Verdict, guilty; and judgment thereon. The respondent excepted.

Judgment that there is no error in the proceedings of the county court, and that the prisoner take nothing by his exceptions.

Stanley C. Wilson for the respondent.

Present ROWELL, C. J., MUNSON, WATSON, HASELTON, POWERS, and MILES, JJ.

OPINION

ROWELL

This is an indictment for threatening to accuse one Tarbox of adultery, with intent to extort money from him.

Pending the plea of not guilty, the prisoner moved to quash the indictment because it did not set out the year when it was found, and was not dated, and because it did not appear on its face when the grand jury was impanelled.

We do not consider whether the motion could be interposed pending the plea, for such a motion is not a right, but is addressed to the discretion of the court, and hence its action thereon is not revisable here. State v. Stewart, 59 Vt. 273, 284, 9 A. 559; Bishop's New Crim. Proceed. § 761.

After the jury was impanelled and before any evidence was given, the prisoner objected to the admission of any evidence, for that the indictment was insufficient for the reasons stated in the motion to quash. But this objection could not avail him, for having joined issue by his plea of not guilty on the allegations of fact in the indictment, any evidence pertinent to the issue was admissible. Barney v. Bliss, 2 Aik. 60; Chase v. Holton, 11 Vt. 347; Briggs v. Mason, 31 Vt. 433, 439; Newman v. Wait, 46 Vt. 689.

The objection to evidence because the indictment did not show that the crime was committed in the county nor even in the State, is disposed of on the same ground. The prisoner should have raised the question by a motion in arrest.

The testimony offered to show that the prisoner made similar threats to others, was admissible, to show that the threats charged were made with the intent alleged.

Mr. Williams testified for the State to a conversation with the prisoner about the matter charged. The prisoner claimed that the conversation was privileged, as he understood at the time that Williams was his attorney. To determine the question of privilege, Williams was given a preliminary examination at the request of the prisoner, but at which he did not testify nor offer to testify. The court found from Williams's testimony, and rightly, that the relation of attorney and client did not exist, and Williams was permitted to testify. When the prisoner took the stand in defence, he offered to testify that he understood that Williams was his attorney. But the competency of Williams having been inquired into and passed upon and his testimony admitted, it was discetionary with the court whether to reopen the question and admit the testimony; and it properly exercised that discretion by excluding it, which is not the subject of exception. The other objections to Williams's testimony are not sustained.

We cannot hold that a threat of accusation otherwise than by course of law, is not within the statute. The statute is aimed at blackmailing, and a threat of any public accusation is as much within the reason of the statute as a threat of a formal complaint,...