State v. Lay

Decision Date29 January 1884
Docket Number11,436
PartiesThe State v. Lay
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the LaPorte Circuit Court.

Judgment affirmed.

F. T Hord, Attorney General, and G. Ford, Prosecuting Attorney for the State.

J Bradley and J. H. Bradley, for appellee.

OPINION

Hammond, J.

The grand jury, in the court below, returned an indictment against the appellee, reading as follows, omitting the title:

"The grand jurors for the county of LaPorte, in the State of Indiana, good and lawful men, duly and legally empanelled, sworn and charged in the LaPorte Circuit Court of said State, at the November term, for the year 1883, to inquire into felonies and certain misdemeanors, in and for the body of said county of LaPorte, in the name and bye the authority of the State of Indiana, on their oath do present that one George F. Lay, late of the said county, on the 25th day of September, A.D. 1883, at said county and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully kill one Erasmus R. Fetzer, contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana."

The appellee moved to quash the indictment. The motion was sustained, and the State appeals to this court.

As defining and fixing the penalty for the crime of manslaughter, and prescribing certain rules relating to the sufficiency of an indictment or information for this crime, we set out and bring together, for convenience, the following sections of the Revised Statutes of 1881:

1908. "Whoever unlawfully kills any human being without malice, express or implied, either voluntarily, upon a sudden heat, or involuntarily, but in the commission of some unlawful act, is guilty of manslaughter, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the State prison not more than twenty-one years nor less than two years."

1746. "In an indictment or information for murder in the second degree or for manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which or the means by which the death was caused; but it shall be sufficient in an indictment or information for murder in the second degree, to charge that the defendant did purposely and maliciously, but without premeditation; and in an indictment or information for manslaughter, that the defendant did unlawfully kill the deceased."

1755. "The indictment or information is sufficient, if it can be understood therefrom--

"First. That the indictment was found by the grand jury of the county or the information presented by the prosecuting attorney of the circuit in which the court was held.

"Second. That the defendant is named or described in an indictment as a person whose name is unknown to the grand jurors, or in an information to the prosecuting attorney.

"Third. That an offence was committed within the jurisdiction of the court, or is triable therein.

"Fourth. That the offence charged is clearly set forth in plain and concise language, without unnecessary repetition.

"Fifth. That the offence charged is stated with such a degree of certainty that the court may pronounce judgment, upon a conviction, according to the rights of the case."

1759. "The defendant may move to quash the indictment or information when it appears upon the face thereof, either--

"First. That the grand jury which found the indictment had no legal authority to inquire into the offence charged.

"Second. That the facts stated in the indictment or information do not constitute a public offence.

"Third. That the indictment or information contains any matter which, if true, would constitute a legal justification of the offence charged or other legal bar to the prosecution.

"Fourth. That the indictment or information does not state the offence with sufficient certainty."

Section 1908, supra, defines two offences, namely, voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. In the former the killing is done intentionally, but without malice, express or implied, and upon a sudden heat. In involuntary...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • State v. Farnam
    • United States
    • Oregon Supreme Court
    • December 12, 1916
    ...cited. At best, the charge is equivocal and inferential only." The Indiana statute on the requisites of an indictment as set out in State v. Lay, 93 Ind. 341, is almost like the Oregon Code on that subject. The decision accords with the doctrine laid down by Mr. Justice Eakin in State v. Wh......
  • Gustavenson v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1902
    ...p. 404; Dennison v. State, 13 Ind. 510; Murphy v. State, 31 Ind. 511; Bruner v. State, 58 Ind. 159; Adams v. State, 65 Ind. 565; State v. Lay, 93 Ind. 341; State Johnson, 102 Ind. 247; Dukes v. State, 11 Ind. 557; Fahnestock v. State, 23 Ind. 231; Brantley v. State, 61 P. 139.) These defini......
  • Pigg v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1896
    ...also, the punishment is the same, being imprisonment in the state's prison not more than 21 years nor less than 2 years. In State v. Lay, 93 Ind. 341, the court had under consideration the form of an indictment for manslaughter, and we do not think there is anything there said which is inco......
  • Pigg v. The State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 27, 1896
    ...the punishment is the same, being imprisonment in the State's prison not more than twenty-one years, not less than two years. In State v. Lay, 93 Ind. 341, the court under consideration the form of an indictment for manslaughter; and we do not think there is anything there said which is inc......
  • 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