TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Dillard

State v. Dillard and Others

State v. Dillard, 5 Blackf. 365 (1840)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
July 28, 1840
Judges
Sullivan
Citations
5 Blackf. 3651840 Ind. LEXIS 72
Headnotes
An indictment for a riot stated that the defendants, on, &c., with force and arms, did unlawfully, riotously, &e., assemble and gather themselves together to disturb the peace of the state, and, being so assembled, did then and there make a great noise, disturbance,,riot, and tumult, and then and there unlawfully, riotously, &c., remained and continued together making such noise, riot, tumult, and disturbance, for the space, &c., and then and there fought through and with each other, &c. Held, that the indictment was sufficient.
Summary
ERROR to the Franldin 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 — Sullivan

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

Sullivan, J.

The defendants were indicted for a riot. The indictment charges that the defendants, on, &c., with force and arms, did unlawfully, riotously, &c., assemble and gather themselves together to disturb the peace of the state, and, being so assembled, did then and there make a great noise, disturbance, riot, and tumult, and then and there unlawfully, riotously, &cl, remained and continued together making such noise, riot, tumult, and disturbance, for the space, &c., and then and there fought through and with each other, &c. Plea, not guilty, and verdict against the defendants. Motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that it is not alleged in the indictment that the defendants riotously fought through and with each other, &c. The Court arrested the judgment and discharged the defendants.

If the allegation in 'the indictment, that the defendants fought through and with each other, were necessary to complete the offence for which the defendants were indicted, it would have been necessary to aver that it was done riotously. But the indictment would have been good, had that clause been omitted altogether. The common law and statutory definitions of a riot are substantially the same, and at common law, an indictment without the clause referred to would be good. 2 Ch. Cr. Law, 488. — Arch. Or. Pr. 382.

Per Curiam.

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, with instructions to the Circuit Court to render judgment on the verdict.

How later courts describe this case

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

1873–1874: 11891–1892: 11899–1900: 11911–1912: 118732026peak 1873 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Green v. State35 S.E. 97 (Ga. 1900)
  2. Carmody v. State98 N.E. 870 (Ind. 1912)
  3. State v. Acra28 N.E. 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 1891)
  4. Kiphart v. State42 Ind. 273 (1873)

Most recent

  1. Carmody v. State98 N.E. 870 (Ind. 1912)
  2. Green v. State35 S.E. 97 (Ga. 1900)
  3. State v. Acra28 N.E. 570 (Ind. Ct. App. 1891)
  4. Kiphart v. State42 Ind. 273 (1873)

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