The State v. Leach
| Decision Date | 25 September 1889 |
| Docket Number | 14,934 |
| Citation | 22 N.E. 111,120 Ind. 124 |
| Parties | The State v. Leach |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Sullivan Circuit Court.
The judgment is reversed, with costs, and the court is instructed to sustain the demurrer to the answer.
L. T Michener, Attorney General, W. C. Hultz, Prosecuting Attorney, J. H. Gillett and O. B. Harris, for the State.
W. S Maple, J. T. Beasley and A. B. Williams, for appellee.
The appellee was tried before a justice of the peace, and convicted of the offence of being found in a public place in a state of intoxication. See section 2091, R. S. 1881. From the judgment of the justice he appealed, and in the circuit court filed an answer alleging the following facts:
That on the 29th day of June, 1888 (the affidavit having been filed theretofore), he was tried before the said justice upon said charge, and the jury, having been out three hours and failing to agree, were, by said justice, discharged, without the appellee's knowledge or consent, and in his absence; that afterwards, and on the 2d day of July, 1888, the appellee was again lawfully tried, before said justice and a jury, upon said charge; that after all the evidence had been introduced and at about the hour of 3 P. M., by agreement and without argument of counsel, the case was given to the jury, and they retired to deliberate of their verdict; that about 6 o'clock, P. M., and when they had been out not to exceed three hours, said jury, not having agreed upon a verdict, without the consent of the appellee, and in his absence from the court-room, said justice discharged said jury; that the room to which said jury retired, and where they were holding their deliberations, was, during the time they were so using it, and when they were discharged, comfortable and convenient, and there existed no physical reason for their discharge; that at the time of the discharge of said jury, on said 2d day of July, costs had accumulated in said case to the amount of fifty dollars.
To this answer the attorney representing the State addressed a demurrer, which the court overruled, and the proper exception was taken. The State refusing to plead further, the court discharged the appellee without a trial.
Neither the Constitution of the United States nor of this State will allow a citizen put in jeopardy twice for the same offence, but if after a jury is empanelled and a trial had a reasonable excuse arises for a discharge of the jury, this will not work an acquittal of the accused. United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579, 9 Wheat. 579, 6 L.Ed. 165.
The length of time that a jury should be kept together in a criminal case without a verdict is a matter very much within the discretion of the court.
In the case of State v. Walker, 26 Ind. 346, the learned judge delivering the opinion said: "But after a careful examination of the question, we are clearly of the opinion that the discharge of the jury because of their inability to agree, * * after it is apparent to the court that they can not agree upon a verdict, constitutes a good cause for their discharge, and leaves the accused subject to be tried by another jury."
In the case of Fowler v. State, 85 Ind. 538, it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The State v. Larimore
... ... good cause for their discharge, and leaves the accused ... subject to trial by another jury. State v ... Walker (1866), 26 Ind. 346, 352; State v ... Nelson (1886), 26 Ind. 366; Shaffer v ... State (1866), 27 Ind. 131; State v ... Leach (1889), 120 Ind. 124, 22 N.E. 111; ... Dreyer v. People (1900), 188 Ill. 40, 58 ... N.E. 620, 58 L.R.A. 869; State v. McMillen ... (1903), 69 Ohio St. 247, 69 N.E. 433; People v ... Parker (1906), 145 Mich. 488, 108 N.W. 999; ... State v. Vaughan (1870), 29 Iowa 286; ... Commonwealth v ... ...
-
Ayad v. State
...court's dismissal of the jury and not the failure to do so. Se sTate v. Larimore (1910), 173 Ind. 452, 90 N.E. 898; State v. Leach (1889), 120 Ind. 124, 22 N.E. 111; Fowler v. State (1882), 85 Ind. 538; Shaffer v. State (1866), 27 Ind. 131. In State v. Leach, supra, however, the following s......
- State v. Leach