TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Odell

State v. Odell, 4 Blackf. 156 (1836)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 28, 1836
Judges
Blackford
Citations
4 Blackf. 1561836 Ind. LEXIS 8
Headnotes
A judgment of acquittal by a.justice of the peace, on a charge of an assault and battery with intent to murder, is corám non judice and void. A plea of such acquittal, to an indictment for an assault and battery alleged W be the same offence with that determined by the.justice, cannot be sustained.
Summary
ERROR to the Montgomery Circuit Court.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Blackford

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Blackford, J.

Indictment against Caleb Odell for an assault and battery on Allen Moore. Plea, that the defendant had been tried by a justice of the peace, for an assault and battery on Allen Moore with intent to murder him, and had been acquitted by the justice of the charge; and that the assault and battery mentioned in the indictment, is the same with that determined by the justice. Demurrer to the plea, and judgment for the defendant.

This judgment must be reversed. The justice had no jurisdiction to try and determine an assault and battery with an intent to murder, and the proceedings before him, described in the plea, were coram non judice. The justice should have taken measures to secure the defendant’s appearance at the next term of the Circuit Court to answer the charge; and that was all he was authorised to do with him. The judgment of the justice, on the merits of the charge of an assault and battery with intent to murder, is a nullity; and the defendant’s *157 plea to the indictment, relying on that judgment, is no de r> fence.

W. Herod, for the state. I. Naylor, for the defendant. Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1861–1862: 11871–1872: 11877–1878: 11879–1880: 11881–1882: 11883–1884: 118612026peak 1861 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Hankins v. People106 Ill. 628 (1883)
  2. United States v. Taylor11 F. 470 (D. Kan. 1882)
  3. Thompson v. State6 Neb. 102 (1877)
  4. Kohlheimer v. State2 Morr. St. Cas. 1388 (1872)
  5. Small v. State63 Ga. 386 (1879)
  6. State v. Hodgkins42 N.H. 474 (1861)

Most recent

  1. Hankins v. People106 Ill. 628 (1883)
  2. United States v. Taylor11 F. 470 (D. Kan. 1882)
  3. Small v. State63 Ga. 386 (1879)
  4. Thompson v. State6 Neb. 102 (1877)
  5. Kohlheimer v. State2 Morr. St. Cas. 1388 (1872)
  6. State v. Hodgkins42 N.H. 474 (1861)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list