TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Franklin v. State

Franklin v. State, 8 N.E. 695 (Ind. 1886)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Indiana Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
October 15, 1886
Docket
No. 13,241
Judges
Elliott
Citations
8 N.E. 695108 Ind. 471886 Ind. LEXIS 181
Headnotes
Criminal Law.— Infoi'mation.— Description of Offence.— Omission, of Word! “ Unlawful.”— Use of Equivalent Woi'ds.—An information charging assault, and battery with intent to murder is not bad for omitting the word “unlawful” from the description of the offence, if words of equivalent meaning are used.
Summary
From the Warren 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 — Elliott

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

Elliott, J.

The information assumes to charge the appellant with assault and battery with intent to murder, and his counsel assert that it is bad for the reason that it omits-the word “ unlawful ”' from. the description of the offence.. This contention can not prevail.

It is well settled that an indictment or information will be upheld if it uses words of equivalent meaning to those employed by the statute in defining the offence. Henning v. State, 106 Ind. 386 ; Riggs v. State, 104 Ind. 261 ; State v. Anderson, 103 Ind. 170 , and cases cited. The word “feloniously ” is used instead of the word “ unlawful,” and it is a-, word of much more force and more comprehensive meaning than the word “ unlawful.” Shinn v. State, 68 Ind. 423 ; *48 Hays v. State, 77 Ind. 450 ; Whart. Crim. Pl. & Pr., section 269.

Filed Oct. 15, 1886.

It is obvious that an act can not be feloniously done, and yet not be unlawful. Not only does the information contain the word feloniously, but it also alleges that the appellant “ did wilfully, purposely, and with premeditated malice, in a rude, insolent and angry manner, strike one Samuel Watkins with a deadly weapon, with intent then and thereby, him, the said Samuel Watkins, purposely, wilfully and with premeditated malice to kill and murder.” And, as said in State v. Murphy, 21 Ind. 441 , “ One man can not strike another with the malicious and premeditated intent to murder him—murder being •a technical term—without so doing unlawfully.”

Judgment affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1897: 11910: 118972026peak 1897 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. People v. Clinton St. Clair244 Ill. 444 (1910)
  2. Walbert v. State46 N.E. 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)

Most recent

  1. People v. Clinton St. Clair244 Ill. 444 (1910)
  2. Walbert v. State46 N.E. 827 (Ind. Ct. App. 1897)

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 6

DepthCaseCited by
Henning v. State, 6 N.E. 803 (Ind. 1886) 59
Shinn v. State, 68 Ind. 423 (1879) 23
State v. Anderson, 2 N.E. 332 (Ind. 1885) 14
Hays v. State, 77 Ind. 450 (1881) 13
Riggs v. State, 3 N.E. 886 (Ind. 1885) 13
State v. Murphy, 21 Ind. 441 (1863) 12

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