The State v. Balsley
| Decision Date | 07 November 1902 |
| Docket Number | 19,831 |
| Citation | 65 N.E. 185,159 Ind. 395 |
| Parties | The State v. Balsley |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Jackson Circuit Court; T. B. Buskirk, Judge.
Joseph D. Balsley was convicted of larceny, but new trial granted. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to a plea in abatement the State appeals.
Reversed.
W. L Taylor, Attorney-General, S. M. Hudson, T. M. Honan, J. H Shea and C. E. Wood for State.
An indictment was returned by the grand jury of Jackson county against the appellee, charging him in one count with the felony of having on the 11th day of April, 1901, embezzled the sum of $ 90.80 in money, the property of the Singer Manufacturing Company, in his possession and under his control as the agent of that company, and, in another count, with having on the same day feloniously stolen, taken, and carried away the sum of $ 90.80, the property of said Singer Manufacturing Company.
The appellee pleaded not guilty, and upon a trial by a jury he was found guilty of grand larceny; the verdict being silent as to the charge of embezzlement. Afterwards, upon his motion, a new trial was granted him. He thereupon filed a plea in abatement as to the first count of the indictment, setting up the former trial, and alleging that by its verdict of guilty on the second count of the indictment, the jury had found him not guilty of the felony charged in the first, and that he had therefore been once in jeopardy upon said first count. The court overruled a demurrer to this plea, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the action as to the second count, and the appellee was discharged. The State appeals, and assigns as error the ruling on the demurrer to the plea in abatement.
The statute provides in so many words that a felony may be charged in separate counts in the indictment to have been committed by different means. § 1813 Burns 1901, § 1744 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901. The statute expressly authorizes the joinder in the same indictment of separate counts for larceny and embezzlement. § 1817 Burns 1901, § 1748 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901. And in giving a construction to these sections this court has held that larceny and embezzlement may be joined in separate counts of the indictment. Griffith v. State, 36 Ind. 406.
It is said in Engleman v. State, 2 Ind. 91, 94, 52 Am. Dec. 494, that "It is proper to insert several counts in an indictment, charging the same transaction, though amounting to a felony, in different modes, in order to meet the proofs in the case; and if it do not appear that different transactions or felonies are charged, the indictment should not be quashed for this cause." (Our italics.)
In the indictment before us, the felonies charged are such as may properly be joined in separate counts. The felonies so charged do not appear to have been distinct or different transactions, but from the identity of date, the place where the felony is alleged to have been committed, the description of the property taken, and its ownership, there is every reason to infer that a single transaction is described in both counts. The method of pleading in criminal cases is said to be "but the exercise of a prudent foresight in anticipation of a possible variance in the evidence from the allegations of the indictment." Griffith v. State, 36 Ind. 406, 407.
The rights of the defendant and the State upon a new trial are clearly defined by statute: §§ 1909, 1910 Burns 1901, §§ 1840, 1841 R. S. 1881 and Horner 1901.
It is entirely clear that when the appellee asked for and obtained a new trial of the issues in his case, the results of the previous trial were wholly vacated. He could not, under the indictment,...
To continue reading
Request your trial