The State v. Fidler
| Decision Date | 11 June 1897 |
| Docket Number | 18,165 |
| Citation | 47 N.E. 464,148 Ind. 221 |
| Parties | The State v. Fidler |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Tippecanoe Circuit Court.
Reversed.
W. A Ketcham, Attorney-General, Merrill Moores, C. E. Thompson and D. E. Storms, for State.
R. P De Hart and Kumler & Gaylord, for appellee.
The indictment herein charged that the appellee at, etc., "did * * * falsely, fraudulently and feloniously make, forge, counterfeit, and utter a certain promissory note * * * with intent then and there and thereby to feloniously, falsely, and fraudulently defraud," etc. The lower court sustained the appellee's motion to quash the indictment upon the contention that two distinct offenses were charged, namely, forging a promissory note, and uttering a forged promissory note.
The statute, section 2354, Burns' R. S. 1894, provides that "Whoever falsely makes or assists to make, defaces, destroys, alters, forges, counterfeits, * * * any record * * * promissory note * * * or any other instrument of writing with intent to defraud any person, body politic or corporate; or utters or publishes as true any such instrument, * * * knowing the same to be false," etc., "with intent to defraud any person, body politic or corporate--shall be imprisoned in the state prison," etc.
It will be observed that under this statute any one of numerous separate and distinct acts will constitute the crime against which a single punishment is provided. Under former statutes any of the enumerated acts, including that of uttering a forged note, constituted the crime defined as forgery, but, under the present revision, in the economy of words, the crime constituted by the commission of any of the acts enumerated, is not named. Intent to defraud is now and always has been of the essence of the offense sought to be restrained, and any of the acts enumerated, if committed with that intent, is forgery. The rule in this State and elsewhere is that when a statute makes it a crime to do any one of several things mentioned disjunctively, all of which are punished alike, the whole may be charged conjunctively in a single count without objection for duplicity. State v. Sarlls, 135 Ind. 195, 34 N.E. 1129; Hobbs v. State, 133 Ind. 404, 32 N.E. 1019; Marshall v. State, 123 Ind. 128, 23 N.E. 1141; State v. Stout, 112 Ind. 245, 13 N.E. 715; Mergentheim v. State, 107 Ind. 567, 8 N.E. 568; Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N.E. 372; People v. Leyshon, 108 Cal. 440, 41 P. 480; Sprouse v. Commonwealth, 81 Va. 374, State v. Murphy, 17 R.I. 698, 24 A. 473; Crain v. United States, 162 U.S. 625, 40 L.Ed. 1097, 16 S.Ct. 952; People v. Altman, 147 N.Y. 473, 42 N.E. 180; Rex v. Horne, Cowp. 672.
In the case of People v. Leyshon, supra, under a statute similar to that quoted above, the indictment charged the forging of a promissory note on one day, and the uttering thereof on the next day, and the court held it not bad for duplicity, invoking the rule above stated.
In People v. Altman, supra, under a like statute, the indictment, which charged the forgery of a check,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yazel v. State
...v. State, 161 Ind. 667, 671, 672, 69 N. E. 463, and authorities cited; Rosenbarger v. State, 154 Ind. 425, 56 N. E. 914;State v. Fidler, 148 Ind. 221, 47 N. E. 464, and cases cited; Fahnestock v. State, 102 Ind. 156, 1 N. E. 372;Anderson v. Van Buren Circuit Judge, 130 Mich. 697, 701, 90 N.......
-
State v. Schipper
...things mentioned disjunctively, all of which are punished alike, the whole may be charged conjunctively in a single count. In State v. Fidler, 148 Ind. 221, on page 222, 47 N. E. 464, on page 465, the court says: “The rule in this state and elsewhere is that when a statute makes it a crime ......
-
Yazel v. The State
... ... was charged under said clause, and that the affidavit was not ... bad for duplicity under the rule declared in Selby ... v. State (1904), 161 Ind. 667, 671, 672, 69 N.E ... 463, and authorities cited; Rosenbarger v ... State (1900), 154 Ind. 425, 56 N.E. 914; ... State v. Fidler (1897), 148 Ind. 221, 47 ... N.E. 464, and cases cited; Fahnestock v ... State (1885), 102 Ind. 156, 1 N.E. 372; ... Anderson v. Van Buren Circuit Judge (1902), ... 130 Mich. 697, 701, 90 N.W. 694; 1 Bishop, Crim. Proc. (4th ... ed.), § 436. In Donovan v. State ... (1908), ante, 123, this ... ...
-
State v. Schipper
... ... this state that, when a statute makes it a crime to do any ... one of several things mentioned disjunctively, all of which ... are punished alike, the whole may be charged conjunctively in ... a single count ... In ... State v. Fidler (1897), 148 Ind. 221, 47 ... N.E. 464, on page 222, the court says, "The rule in this ... state and elsewhere is that when a statute makes it a crime ... to do any one of several things mentioned disjunctively, all ... of which are punished alike, the whole may be charged ... conjunctively in ... ...