State v. Shiflett

• Decision Date: 31 January 1855
• Citation: 20 Mo. 415
• Parties: THE STATE, Plaintiff in Error, v. SHIFLETT, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

20 Mo. 415

THE STATE, Plaintiff in Error,

v.SHIFLETT, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1855.

1. An indictment upon one section of a statute need not negative an exception in a subsequent section.

Error to Linn Circuit Court.

Gardenhire, (attorney general,) for the State.

I. When a statute contains provisions and exceptions in distinct clauses, it is not necessary to state in the indictment that the defendant does not come within the exceptions, or to negative the provisoes. (1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 283; 2 Hale, 171; Hawk. C. 2, c. 25, s. 112; State v. Adams, 6 N. Hamp. 533-4.)

II. The indictment is not double. (Storrs v. State, 3 Mo. 7.)

III. The venue is sufficiently laid. (1 Chitty's Crim. Law, 198; State v. Edwards, 19 Mo. 677.)

No appearance for defendant in error.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

The defendant James Dudley Shiflett, was indicted at the April term of the Circuit Court for the county of Linn, in the year eighteen hundred and fifty-three, for wilfully and unlawfully opening one sealed letter not addressed to himself, and without authority from the writer thereof, or from the person to whom it was addressed.

The defendant appeared to the indictment at the October term of the court, and made his motion to quash the same, for the following reasous: “That said indictment does not negative the fact that said offence is punishable by the laws of the United States; that said indictment is defective in joining two separate offences in the same count; that said indictment does not give venue to the person by whom said letter was written, &c. no venue to the reading of the letter; no sufficient venue to the material charges contained in the same; and that the indictment is double, informal, insufficient and uncertain.”

The Circuit Court quashed the indictment. The circuit attorney excepted to the ruling of the court, filed his bill of exceptions, and brings the case here by writ of error.

1. The indictment is based upon the 40th section of the 8th article of the statute concerning “Crimes and Punishments,” (R. C. 1845, p. 406,) which section is as follows, viz: “If any person shall wilfully open or read, or cause to be read, any sealed letter not addressed to himself, without authority to do so from the writer thereof, or from the person to whom it is addressed, he shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by fine not exceeding two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding three months.”

Sec. 41. “Every person who shall publish the whole or any part of the contents of such letter, without the authority of the writer thereof, or of the person to whom it is addressed, knowing the same to have been unlawfully opened, shall, on conviction, be adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished as in the preceding section is specified.”

Sec. 42. “The two last sections shall not extend to the breaking open of letters, which shall be punishable by the laws of the United States.”

The indictment charges that James Dudley Shiflett, late of Linn county, “on, &c., with force and arms, at the county aforesaid, one sealed letter, then and there being, and then and there addressed to one Catherine Buchanan, and purporting to have been written by one George Gimmett, did then and there wilfully and unlawfully open and read said letter, without any authority from the said Catherine Buchanan, or from the said George Gimmett, then and there authorizing him, the said James Dudley Shiflett, to open and read said letter, contrary,” &c.

This indictment is substantially good; the venue is properly laid to all the material charges therein, and there is not the least pretext for considering it double. The charge is but one offense, and it is stated sufficiently plain. I presume the court below quashed it for the reason first assigned by the defendant in support of his motion, “that the said indictment does not negative the fact that said offence is punishable by the laws of the United States.”

There is no force in this objection. It is a well settled rule that, when a statute contains provisoes and exceptions in distinct clauses, it is not necessary to state in the indictment that the defendant does not come within the exceptions, or to negative the provisoes it contains.

In the case of The State v. Adams, (6 N. Hamp. 533,) the court laid down this rule thus: “The rule is, where the exception is in the enacting clause of the statute, it must be negatived in the indictment. But where it is in a subsequent clause of the statute, it is mere matter of defence,” It is laid down in...