The State v. Sevier
| Decision Date | 15 February 1889 |
| Docket Number | 14,683 |
| Citation | 20 N.E. 245,117 Ind. 338 |
| Parties | The State v. Sevier |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Sullivan Circuit Court.
The appeal is sustained, at the costs of the appellee.
L. T Michener, Attorney General, W. C. Hultz, Prosecuting Attorney, and O. B. Harris, for the State.
W. C Barrett, J. T. Hays, W. S. Maple and J. C. Chaney, for appellee.
This was a prosecution originating before a justice of the peace. There was a conviction before the justice and an appeal taken to the circuit court, a trial had in that court and an acquittal.
The State appeals upon a question reserved as provided in the third clause of section 1882, R. S. 1881.
The appellee is charged in the affidavit with a violation of section 2091, R. S. 1881, which reads as follows:
"Whoever is found in any public place in a state of intoxication shall be fined any amount not exceeding five dollars."
There are two errors assigned: 1. The court erred in giving to the jury instruction number four. 2. The court erred in giving to the jury instruction number five.
The fourth instruction is, in substance, that if the jury find the defendant guilty, they may, in their discretion, exempt him from all costs.
This instruction, we think, was proper and within section 1838, R. S. 1881.
Counsel for the State contend that this section ought to be construed with other sections of the statute, and, when so construed, that it does not authorize the court or jury trying the cause to excuse the defendant, when found guilty, from the payment of costs.
The whole section reads thus: "When the defendant is found guilty, the court shall render judgment accordingly; and the defendant shall be liable for all costs, unless the court or jury trying the cause expressly find otherwise."
Unless the latter clause of the section authorizes the court or jury trying the cause to find the defendant guilty and relieve him from the payment of costs, then it is meaningless. The construction contended for, if adopted, would, in effect, repeal that much of the section.
We will set out the fifth instruction:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v. State
...deleterious effects which may and do occur because of the presence of persons who are in an intoxicated condition,” State v. Sevier, 117 Ind. 338, 20 N.E. 245, 246–47 (1889) (emphasis added), thus demonstrating the apparent suitability of the word “annoys” within the statute. Indiana courts......
-
Wright v. State
...effects which may and do occur because of the presence of persons who are in an intoxicated condition." State v. Sevier, 117 Ind. 338, 340, 20 N.E. 245, 246-47 (1889). It is logical to us that the scenario presented today, namely an intoxicated person causing a disturbance in a hotel hallwa......
-
State v. Culp, 2-981A330
...the appellees' behavior is precisely the kind of conduct the public intoxication statute seeks to proscribe. It cites State v. Siever, (1889) 117 Ind. 338, 20 N.E. 245, where our supreme court "The purpose of the law is to protect the public from the annoyances and deleterious effects which......
-
Mathews v. State
...of persons who are in an intoxicated condition.’ ” State v. Jenkins, 898 N.E.2d 484, 487 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (quoting State v. Sevier, 117 Ind. 338, 20 N.E. 245, 246–247 (1889)), trans. denied. “A ‘public place’ does not mean only a place devoted to the use of the public.” Jones v. State, 881......