State v. Mace
| Decision Date | 04 March 1884 |
| Citation | 76 Me. 64 |
| Parties | STATE OF MAINE v. GEORGE H. MACE. |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
ON EXCEPTIONS.
Indictment for perjury. The verdict was guilty. A motion in arrest of judgment stated as one reason: " Because said indictment does not sufficiently charge an offence against the respondent under the constitution and laws of the State of Maine." The motion was overruled and exceptions were taken to that ruling.
The indictment was in the form prescribed by R. S., 1871, c. 122 § 5.
George P. Dutton, county attorney, for the State, cited: R. S., c 122, § 5; State v. Corson, 59 Me. 137.
H. D. Hadlock, for the defendant, cited: 2 Whar. Crim. L. § § 2200, 2198, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2243, 2263, 2255, 2616; R. S., c. 122, § 1; Constitution, Art. 1, § 7; 2 Arch. Crim. Pr. 1723-4, 1725, 1727-8, 1735; 2 Bish. Crim. Pro. § § 846, 852, 853, 856, 858; Com v. Knight, 12 Mass. 274; Rex v. Richards, 7 D. & R. 665; 1 Whar. Crim. L. § § 264, 285, 288, 372; 1 Bish. Crim. Pro. § § 277, 301, 362, 363; 1 Arch. Crim. Pr. 275-6; State v. Corson, 59 Me. 141; Bish. Crim. Pro. (3d ed.) § § 86, 89, 311, 519-521, 618.
The defendant is charged with having committed the crime of perjury " by falsely swearing to material matter in a writing signed by him." The indictment makes no mention of the character or purpose of the writing. Nor does it state what the matter falsely sworn to was. Nor does it contain any averments which will enable the court to determine that the oath was one authorized by law. The question is whether such an indictment can be sustained. We think it can not. It does not contain sufficient matter to enable the court to render an intelligent judgment. The recital of facts is not sufficient to show that a crime has been committed. All that is stated may be true, and yet no crime have been committed. The character of the writing is not stated, nor its purpose; nor the use made, or intended to be made, of it. For aught that appears, it may have been a voluntary affidavit to the wonderful cures of a quack medicine. Such an affidavit, as every lawyer knows, could not be made the basis of a conviction for perjury. In the language of our statute defining perjury, it is only when one who is required to tell the truth on oath or affirmation lawfully administered, wilfully and corruptly swears or affirms falsely to material matter, in a proceeding before a court, tribunal or officer created by law, that he is guilty of perjury. R. S., c. 122, § 1. The oath must be one authorized or required by law, to constitute perjury. Swearing to an extra judicial affidavit is not perjury. And the indictment must contain enough to show that the oath was one which the law authorized or required, or it will be defective and clearly insufficient, even after verdict; for the verdict will affirm no more than is stated in the indictment; and if the indictment does not contain enough to show that perjury has been committed, a verdict of guilty will not aid it. We think the indictment in this case is fatally defective in not setting out either the tenor or the substance of the writing sworn to by the accused, to the end that the court might see whether it was one in relation to which perjury could be committed.
Besides, the writing referred to in the indictment may (and it would be strange if it did not) contain more than one statement in relation to matters of fact. The grand jury, upon the evidence before them, may have come to the conclusion that the statement in relation to one of these matters of fact...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Brady
...infringed upon constitutional rights because the form did not meet the requirements of the Constitution in identifying the offense. State v. Mace, 76 Me. 64. The Legislature of Texas attempted to dispense with material allegations in an indictment, and the act was held void. Hewitt v. State......
-
State v. Farnam
... ... True enough, the ... legislative branch of the government may simplify forms, but ... sufficient must be left in the accusing document to preserve ... and satisfy the constitutional rights of the accused ... State v. Learned, 47 Me. 426; State v ... Mace, 76 Me. 64. It is true that the forms in the ... appendix to our Code allow the allegation that the means ... employed to commit the crime are unknown to the grand jury; ... but in so far as that provision deprives the defendant of the ... right to know the nature and cause ... ...
-
Koppala v. State
...443; People v. Heffron, 53 Mich. 527; State v. Record, 56 Ind. 107; State v. Fitts, 44 N. H., 621; Fench v. State, 64 Miss. 461; State v. Mace, 76 Me. 64; People v. O'Callagan (Ida.), 9 P. 415; U. v. Reese, 92 U.S. 225; People v. Dumar, 106 N.Y. 502; 1 Chitty, C. R. Law, 172; Com. v. Dudley......
-
State v. Beckwith
...must be certain, positive, and complete. State v. Strout, 132 Me. 134, 167 A. 859; State v. Crouse, 117 Me. 363, 104 A. 525; State v. Mace, 76 Me. 64; State v. Learned, 47 Me. 426; State v. Moran, 40 Me. 129; Const. of Maine, art. 1, § 6. It is accordingly held that in charging an attempt t......