State v. Bowling

State v. Bowling, 29 Tenn. 52 (1849)

Court: Tennessee Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided: September 15, 1849
Judges: McKinney
Citations: 29 Tenn. 52

Cited by 0

Headnotes

Bowling was indicted for an assault with intent to commit murder in the first degree. He was found guilty of an assault and battery, by virtue of the act of 1832, ch. 22, and the judgment was arrested on the ground that it appeared on the face of the indictment, that the offence was committed more than twelve months before the commencement of the prosecution. This was erroneous. The defendant cannot avail himself of the act of 1820, ch. 9, to bar a prosecution in a case like this, by motion in arrest of judgment, plea or demurrer, but only by proof of the fact on trial.

Summary

On the 28th day of June, 1850, the grand jury empan-nelled for Roane county, returned a bill of indictment against Bowling. It charged that Bowling, on the 5th day of May, 1848, made an assault upon Enox, with intent wilfully, maliciously and with premeditation to murder him. He was tried on the plea of not guilty, and acquitted of the felony and found guilty of an assault and battery. He made a motion in arrest of judgment, on the ground that it appeared on the face of the indictment, that the assault and battery of which he was convicted, was committed on the 5th day of May, 1848, and that the indictment was not found within one year from that date. The judgment was arrested by the presiding judge, Luctey. From this judgment the State appealed.

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

Opinion of the Court — McKinney

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

McKinney, J.

delivered the opinion of the court.

In the construction- of the act of 1832, ch. 22, it has been held by this court, that in an indictment for an assault with intent to committ murder in the first degree, is included an indictment for an assault and battery; and if upon the trial the proof does not warrant a conviction for felony, the defendant may be found guilty of the *53 misdemeanor. And in the latter case, if the prosecution were not commenced within twelve months “from the commission of the offence,” the defendant may avail himself of the limitation prescribed in the act of 1820, ch. 9, sec. 1, as a bar to the prosecution. But he can only do so, in a case like the present, by proof of the facts upon the trial; and not by plea, demurrer, or motion in arrest of judgment. 1 Meigs’ Dig. p. 370, and cases referred to. The judgment of the circuit court arresting judgment will therefore be reversed.

How later courts describe this case

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

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list