State v. Reed
Citation | 81 N.E. 571,168 Ind. 588 |
Decision Date | 05 June 1907 |
Docket Number | 20,976 |
Parties | The State v. Reed |
Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
From Hancock Circuit Court; Robert L. Mason, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Adolphus Reed. From a judgment for defendant, the State appeals.
Reversed.
James Bingham, Attorney-General, Charles L. Tindall, Prosecuting Attorney, A. G. Cavins, H. M. Dowling and E. M. White, for the State.
Jonas P. Walker, Arthur C. Van Duyn and John Lockridge, for appellee.
Appellee was charged by affidavit, before a justice of the peace, with selling intoxicating liquor to a "person at the time in a state of intoxication, knowing him to be in a state of intoxication," in violation of § 573 of an act concerning public offenses, approved March 10, 1905 (Acts 1905, pp. 584, 720, § 2219 Burns 1905). He was tried and convicted, and appealed to the court below, where he filed a plea in bar, averring, in substance, that before the affidavit in this case was filed, but on the same day appellee had been placed upon his trial, upon an affidavit charging him with giving intoxicating liquors, in violation of § 2219, supra, to the same person to whom he is charged with selling intoxicating liquor in this case that before said trial was concluded, but after jeopardy had attached, said justice of the peace, on motion of the prosecuting attorney, without the consent of appellee dismissed said charge of giving away, etc. That said charge upon which appellee had been placed upon trial as aforesaid is for the same offense which is stated and charged in the affidavit in this cause.
It is well settled in this State that when a defendant in a criminal prosecution is put upon his trial on a valid charge in a court having jurisdiction of the subject-matter and the parties, and the cause is dismissed over his objection, the same is equivalent to an acquittal, and he has been put in jeopardy, within the meaning of § 14, article 1, of the Constitution of this State, and cannot again be put in jeopardy for the same offense. Hensley v. State (1886), 107 Ind. 587, 589, 590, 8 N.E. 692, and cases cited; Boswell v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 47, 49, 11 N.E. 788; Gillespie v. State (1907), ante, 298, and cases cited; Gillett, Crim. Law (2d ed.), § 31.
By § 2219, supra, the selling, bartering, or giving away of intoxicating liquor to a person at the time in a state of intoxication, knowing him to be in a state of intoxication, is prohibited. Said section defines three separate crimes--selling, bartering, and giving away under the conditions mentioned--and upon proof of one the defendant cannot be convicted of either of the others. Kurz v. State (1881), 79 Ind. 488; Harvey v. State (1881), 80 Ind. 142; Massey v. State (1881), 74 Ind. 368; Stevenson v. State (1879), 65 Ind. 409; Gillett, Crim. Law (2d ed.), § 592a.
When the facts necessary to convict upon a second prosecution would not necessarily have convicted upon the first prosecution, then the first, if dismissed, after jeopardy has attached, which, as we have said, is equivalent to an acquittal (Boswell v. State [1887], 111 Ind. 47, 49, 11 N.E. 788), will not be a bar to a second prosecution. 1 Bishop, Crim. Law (8th ed.), §§ 1052, 1053; Wharton, Crim. Pl. and Pr. (9th ed.), §§ 459-461, 471, 472; 17 Am. and Eng. Ency. Law (2d ed.), 597; Boswell v. State, supra; State v. Elder (1879), 65 Ind. 282, 285, 286, 32 Am. Rep. 69; Smith v. State (1882), 85 Ind. 553, 557; Davidson v. State (1885), 99 Ind. 366, 368, and authorities cited; Durham v. People (1843), 4 Scammon (Ill.) 172, 39 Am. Dec. 407. In 1 Bishop, Crim. Law (8th ed.), §§ 1052, 1053, it is said on this subject:
This court said in Smith v. State supra, on page 557: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial