Commonwealth v. Wheeler
Opinion
As at present advised, I do not consider a nolle prosequi a sufficient bar to a future indictment for the same offence.
A nolle prosequi is often entered by the attorney for the government, on discovering some informality in his indictment. I consider that it applies to the particular indictment only, and not to the offence.
A nolle prosequi cannot be considered as equivalent to a pardon. But, if it were, by our constitution, a pardon granted by the executive will not avail the party pleading it before conviction. I think it has been held that a nolle prosequi is not a bar even to the indictment on which it is entered, though I believe this opinion has been since overruled. But I do not hesitate to say that it is no bar to an after-indictment for the same offence.
The plea in bar is not good unless a nolle pro sequi amounts either to a pardon or to an acquittal. It cannot be considered as having the effect of a pardon, because, by our constitution, the governor, with the advice of the council, has .the sole power of granting pardons; and he cannot have this power until after conviction.
Neither can a nolle prosequi be deemed an acquittal. This was adjudged in the case of Goddard vs. Smith.
Footnotes
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
2 Mass. 172 (Commonwealth v. Wheeler) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.