State v. Lea
| Citation | 41 Tenn. 175 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JOHN W. LEA. |
| Decision Date | 30 September 1860 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Tennessee |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM ANDERSON.
This was an indictment containing two counts,--one against Polly Baily, for perjury, the second against John W. Lee, for subornation of perjury. After a motion to quash the indictment at the July term, 1860, the attorneygeneral, with the assent of the court, entered a nolle prosequi as to Polly Baily. The counsel for Lea renewed his motion to quash, which was done. Judge George Brown, presiding. The State appealed.Attorney-General John W. Head, for the State.
C. F. Trigg, for John W. Lea.
This was an indictment containing two counts,--the first against Polly Baily, for perjury, and the second against the defendant, John W. Lea, for subornation of perjury. In the second count, the manner in which the perjury was committed by the said Polly Baily is attempted to be set out without any reference to the antecedent count. And the subornation charged against the said Lea consists in feloniously procuring the said Polly Baily to commit the perjury in the second count; omitting, also, in this branch of the accusation, any notice of the averments contained in the first count. The counsel of Lea moved the Circuit Court to quash the indictment, upon the ground, as stated in argument, of a misjoinder of persons and offences: and thereupon the attorney-general for the State, with the assent of the court, entered a nolle prosequi as to the said Polly Bailey; but the counsel of Lea still insisted upon his motion to quash, which was sustained by the Circuit Court; and the State appeals.
It is now contended by the counsel of Lea that the indictment, as to him, is fatally defective upon many grounds. And this is conceded to be so by the attorney-general, unless the count against the accused (Lea) can be supported by reference to the averments in the first count against Polly Baily; and on the other hand, it is not denied by the counsel of Lea, that if this can be done, the indictment against him is good. So, that case resolves itself into the question, whether the count against the prisoner (Lea) can take any aid from the antecedent count against Polly Baily.
We are not able to perceive why these parties were not properly joined in the same indictment, and charged in separate counts. Though their offences be distinct, they were of the same nature, admitted of the same plea and the same, judgment. Campbell v. The State, 9 Yerg. 333. But it is not material to consider this, as it is disposed of by the nolle, prosequi.
Undoubtedly, as we think, one count in an indictment, incomplete and imperfect in itself, when standing alone, may, if framed with that view, be supported by the averments of another count contained in the same indictment. And this is so, although the other count may be bad and may have been quashed, or being good a nolle prosequi may have been entered upon it, provided the united averments of the two--i. e., the principal count, and the matter borrowed from the other--constitute together a complete accusation and statement of the offence. But to have this effect the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Halquist v. State
...173; Hall v. State, 71 Tenn. 552, 558; Smith v. State, 70 Tenn. 614; Kelly v. State, 66 Tenn. 84; Ayrs v. State, 45 Tenn. 26, 28; State v. Lea, 41 Tenn. 175; Cash v. State, 29 Tenn. 111; Wright v. State, 23 Tenn. 194. In Galbreath v. State, 187 Tenn. 669, 216 S.W.2d 689, supra, the Court sa......
-
Meade v. State
...173; Hall v. State, 71 Tenn. 552, 558; Smith v. State, 70 Tenn. 614; Kelly v. State, 66 Tenn. 84; Ayrs v. State, 45 Tenn. 26, 28; State v. Lea, 41 Tenn. 175; Cash v. State, 29 Tenn. 111; Wright v. State, 23 Tenn. 194. In Galbreath v. State, 187 Tenn. 669, 216 S.W.2d 689, Supra, the Court sa......
-
State v. Alston, E2012-00431-CCA-R3-CD
..."Each count must be a complete indictment within itself, charging all the facts and circumstances that make the crime." State v. Lea, 41 Tenn. 175, 177-78 (Tenn. 1860). Indeed, for purposes of protection against double jeopardy, one of the concerns addressed by the Hill requirements, the Su......
-
State v. Medford
...count must be a complete indictment within itself, charging all the facts and circumstances that make the crime," State v. Lea, 41 Tenn. 175, 177-78 (Tenn. 1860), where "it is reasonably clear from the averments of the second count that this is connected with and a part of the preceding cou......