TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Wamire

State v. Wamire, 16 Ind. 357 (1861)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
June 10, 1861
Judges
Perkins
Citations
16 Ind. 3571861 Ind. LEXIS 183
Cited by 24
Headnotes
If the Court, without the consent of the defendant, discharge the jury to whom a criminal cause has been submitted before verdict, no imperious necessity rendering such discharge necessary, it works an acquittal. The Court is not bound to discharge the jury because the defendant consents to such discharge ; and should not discharge them on the consent of defendant’s attorney alone. Nor is the Court bound to discharge the jury because of the voluntary absence of the defendant during the trial, he' having been present at its commencement, but may proceed to verdict in his absence. If the defendant escapes after sentence and before execution, he may be retaken, brought into Court, identified and re-sentenced.
Summary
APPEAL from the Jasper Common Pleas.

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

Opinion of the Court — Perkins

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

Perkins, J.

The following points of criminal law are settled in this State :

1. If the Court, without the consent of the defendant, discharge the jury to whom his cause has been submitted, before verdict, no imperious necessity rendering such discharge necessary, it works an acquittal of the defendant; but such discharge with his consent does not work an acquittal, and the defendant should be held for another trial.

2. The Court is not bound thus to discharge the jury because the defendant consents to such discharge, and should • not thus discharge them on the consent of the defendant’s attorney alone.

3. The Court is not bound to discharge the jury because of the voluntary absence of the defendant during the trial, he having been present at its commencement (McCorkle v. The State, 14 Ind. 39 ; Fight v. The State, 7 Ohio (Ham.) Rep., Part 1, p. 181), but may proceed on to verdict,.at all events, in his absence.

4. If the defendant escapes after sentence, and before execution, he may be retaken, brought info Court, identified and re-sentenced. Ind. Pr. 72.

Per Curiam.

The appeal in this case is dismissed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 24 cases

View all citing references →
1879–1880: 11881–1882: 21883–1884: 21885–1886: 21889–1890: 11895–1896: 11899–1900: 11903–1904: 11905–1906: 21907–1908: 11909–1910: 11911–1912: 11927–1928: 11937–1938: 11941–1942: 11943–1944: 11949–1950: 11951–1952: 11965–1966: 11999–2000: 118792026peak 1881 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Richardson v. State717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999)
  2. Shular v. State4 N.E. 870 (Ind. 1886)
  3. Greenwalt v. State209 N.E.2d 254 (Ind. 1965)
  4. Falk v. United States15 App. D.C. 446 (D.C. Cir. 1899)
  5. Allen v. State52 Fla. 1 (1906)
  6. Barton v. State67 Ga. 653 (1881)

Most recent

  1. Richardson v. State717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999)
  2. Greenwalt v. State209 N.E.2d 254 (Ind. 1965)
  3. Maddox v. State102 N.E.2d 225 (Ind. 1951)
  4. State ex rel. Shetsky v. Utecht36 N.W.2d 126 (Minn. 1949)
  5. Miles v. State53 N.E.2d 779 (Ind. 1944)
  6. Stough Et Ux. v. State1942 OK CR 115, 128 P.2d 1028

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 1

DepthCaseCited by
McCorkle v. State, 14 Ind. 39 (1860) 55

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