State v. McCarty
| Decision Date | 02 May 1891 |
| Citation | 22 A. 282,17 R.I. 370 |
| Parties | STATE v. MCCARTY. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Appeal from court of common pleas, Providence county.
Indictment of Daniel McCarty for burglary. Defendant was convicted, and now petitions for a new trial. Petition granted.
Fiba O. Slocum, Atty. Gen., for the State.
S. S. Stone and E. F. Lovejoy, for defendant.
The defendant was indicted in the court of common pleas at its December term, 1890, for breaking and entering, in the day-time, the house of one Jeremiah B. Fuller, in Providence, with the intent to commit larceny therein. At the trial the prosecution called as a witness the owner of the dwelling-house, who testified that his name was Jedediah B. Fuller. When the case for the prosecution was closed, the defendant moved that the indictment be quashed because of the variance between the allegation of the owner of the house and the proof submitted. The court overruled the motion to quash, and upon motion of the attorney general, and against the defendant's objection, permitted the indictment to be amended by striking out the name Jeremiah and Inserting the name Jededian. The defendant excepted to the rulings of the court of common pleas in the matters stated, and, the jury having returned a verdict of guilty, now petitions for a new trial, upon the ground, among others, that the court of common pleas had no authority to permit the amendment. We think that a new trial should be granted. The amendment to the indictment, being in a matter of substance, could only properly have been made in the presence of and with the concurrence of the grand jury, or, under Pub. St. R. I. c. 248, § 4, with the consent of the accused. Petition granted.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Picillo v. Sharkey
...infamous crime of being a common gambler as the same is defined in § 11-19-18. See State v. Nichols, 27 R.I. 69, 60 A. 763. State v. McCarthy, 17 R.I. 370, 22 A. 282, would appear to be dispositive of petitioner's first contention, namely, that the grand jury's constitutionally exclusive ju......
-
State v. Carlone, s. 1412-E
...amend was to reconvene the grand jury that returned the indictment. State v. Child, 158 Me. 242, 182 A.2d 675 (1962). In State v. McCarthy, 17 R.I. 370, 22 A. 282 (1891), the court held that a substantive amendment to an indictment could be made only in the presence of and with the consent ......
- Merrill v. State
-
State v. Davis
...the grand jury which returned it, or with the consent of the accused under section 4 of chapter 354 of the General Laws. State v. McCarthy, 17 R. I. 370, 72 Atl. 282. But, as already indicated, a bill of particulars is not an amendment of an indictment, nor does it supply a defect One other......