TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Brewer

State v. Brewer, 7 Blackf. 45 (1844)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 4, 1844
Judges
Blackford
Citations
7 Blackf. 451844 Ind. LEXIS 13
Headnotes
Indictment for malicious trespass. Verdict as follows: “We the jury find the defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and assess his fine at twelve dollars and two days’ imprisonment in the county jail.” The prosecuting .attorney remitted the imprisonment except six hours, and judgment was rendered against the defendant for twelve dollars, and that he he imprisoned six hours, and pay the costs. Held, that the prosecuting attorney had no authority to enter the remittitur. Held, also, that the judgment though erroneous for not agreeing with the verdict, could not be reversed on a writ of error brought by the state. •
Summary
ERROR, to the Wells 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 for malicious trespass. Plea,

not guilty. Verdict as follows: “ We the jury find the defendant guilty in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and assess his fine at twelve dollars and two days’ imprisonment in the county jail.” Motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment were made by the defendant and overruled. The following entry appears afterwards of record : u And the said prosecuting attorney here remits all the imprisonment in this behalf except six hours. It is therefore considered by the Court, that the said state of Indiana do have and recover against the said defendant the said sum of twelve dollars, and be imprisoned for the space of six hours, that he pay costs,” &c.

The prosecuting attorney had no authority to enter any remission in this case, and the judgment not agreeing with the verdict is no doubt erroneous. But still the judgment cannot be reversed on a writ of error brought by the state. The defendant has been tried upon a good indictment, and a verdict and judgment have been rendered against, him. If the judgment could be reversed at the instance of the state, the defendant would be in danger of having another judgment in the cause rendered against him, and be thus put in *46 jeopardy a second time for the same offence. . The constitution forbids such a proceeding. Ind. Const. Art. 1. sect. 13.

W. H. Coombs, for the state. T. Johnson, for the defendant.

Per Curiam.

— The judgment is affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1909: 11975: 119092026peak 1909 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Walton99 P. 431 (Or. 1909)
  2. Spalding v. State330 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)

Most recent

  1. Spalding v. State330 N.E.2d 774 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975)
  2. State v. Walton99 P. 431 (Or. 1909)

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