Territory Montana v. Dooley
| Decision Date | 18 January 1882 |
| Parties | TERRITORY OF MONTANA v. PATRICK DOOLEY. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Battery is not an essential part of an assault with intent to kill, and the statute not authorizing a charge of “assault and battery with intent to kill,” the prisoner, under an indictment for an “assault with intent to kill,” cannot be convicted of a battery. He can be convicted only for assault with intent to commit murder, or a simple assault.
From Second district, Deer Lodge county.
Thos. J. Lowery, for respondent.
Thos. L. Napton, for appellant.
This appeal presents one question only, viz.: Can a defendant, under an indictment charging him with an assault with intent to commit murder, be lawfully convicted of an assault and battery? Our statute provides that “an assault with intent to commit murder shall subject the offender” to the punishment therein provided. Under this statute a battery is not necessary to an assault with intent to commit murder. It does not necessarily form one of the elements of that crime. It is not one of the essential parts thereof, and is not necessarily included therein. An assault with intent to commit murder may be perfect and complete without a battery. If, therefore, an indictment charging a defendant with an assault with intent to commit murder, also charges an assault and battery, it is subject to the objection that it charges two offenses in one indictment, which our statute forbids. The statute does not authorize the charge of an assault and battery with intent to commit murder, but an assault with such intent, and though the indictment may recite a battery in connection with and as the consummation of the assault, such recital forms no part of the charge. It follows, therefore, that under such an indictment the only crimes for which a defendant might be convicted would be an assault with intent to commit murder, and a simple assault. The defendant was tried as for an assault with intent to murder. The indictment did not support the charge, and the objection to it ought to have been sustained. The indictment being bad as an indictment for an assault with intent to murder, it cannot support a charge of a lesser crime, which if the indictment were good, would necessarily be included in it. The lesser falls with the greater. The elements that make up an indictment for an assault with intent to murder have no vitality as independentcharges, after the main charge upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Application of McLeod
... ... discharged. ( People v. Murat, 45 Cal. 281; ... Mapula v. Territory, 9 Ariz. 199, 80 P. 389; ... Bryant v. State, 41 Ark. 359; Lindsey v ... State, 53 Fla. 56, ... State, 60 Miss. 268; People ... v. Adams, 52 Mich. 24, 17 N.W. 226; Territory v ... Dooley, 4 Mont. 295, 1 P. 747; Alyea v. State, ... 62 Neb. 143, 86 N.W. 1066; State v. Thomas, 65 ... ...
-
State v. Shaver
... ... State v. Akin, 94 Iowa 50, 62 N.W. 667; Watson ... v. State, supra; Territory v. Dooley, 4 Mont ... 295, 1 P. 747; Bush v. Commonwealth, 78 Ky. 268; ... People v ... ...
-
State v. Shaver
...Other cases in line with the Parker Case, supra, are State v. Akin, 94 Iowa, 50, 62 N. W. 667; Watson v. State, supra; Territory v. Dooley, 4 Mont. 295, 1 Pac. 747;Bush v. Com., 78 Ky. 268;People v. McDonnell, 92 N. Y. 657;Davis v. State, 45 Ark. 464;State v. Burk, 89 Mo. 635, 2 S. W. 10;Pe......
-
State v. Singh
...the lower is necessarily included in the higher. (Ex parte McLeod, 23 Idaho 257, 128 P. 1106, 43 L. R. A., N. S., 813; Territory v. Dooley, 4 Mont. 295, 1 P. 747; Territory v. West, 4 Ariz. 212, 36 P. 207; v. Crawford, 32 Idaho 165, 179 P. 511; 1 Wharton, Crim, Proc., 10th ed., sec. 299, p.......