Franklin v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Franklin v. State

8 N.E. 695, 108 Ind. 47, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 181

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedOctober 15, 1886

DocketNo. 13,241

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 N.E. 695 (Franklin v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Franklin v. State, 8 N.E. 695, 108 Ind. 47, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 181 (Ind. 1886).

Pincite

Opinion

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]*48Hays 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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]*48Hays 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 N.E. 695, 108 Ind. 47, 1886 Ind. LEXIS 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/franklin-v-state-ind-1886.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack