Hunter v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Hunter v. State

49 N.E. 1064, 150 Ind. 696, 1898 Ind. LEXIS 238

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedApril 8, 1898

DocketNo. 18,365

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 N.E. 1064 (Hunter 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

Hunter v. State, 49 N.E. 1064, 150 Ind. 696, 1898 Ind. LEXIS 238 (Ind. 1898).

Pincite

Opinion

McCabe, J.

The appellant was indicted in the court below for robbery. On a trial of the charge by a jury he was found guilty of robbery, as charged in the indictment, and that he was twenty-two years of age. The court adjudged him guilty of robbery, and that he be committed to the custody of the board of managers of the Indiana Reformatory at Jeffersonville, Indiana, as guilty of the crime of robbery, for a term not exceeding fourteen years nor less than two years, subject to the rules and regulations established by said board for said reformatory, and that the defendant’s age was twenty-two years.

Error is assigned upon the rulings overruling the motion for a venire de novo, and for a new trial. The reasons urged in support of both motions are that the verdict and judgment are both unauthorized by law, unless what is commonly called the “Reformatory Act,” approved Feb. 26, 1897, is valid, and that said act is unconstitutional and void.

The same reasons are urged in this case against the constitutionality of the act here in question that were urged in Miller v. State, 149 Ind. 607. On the authority of that case, we hold that such reasons cannot prevail, and that the act is constitutional, and that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a venire de novo, and the motion for a new trial. The judgment is affirmed.

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

McCabe, J.

The appellant was indicted in the court below for robbery. On a trial of the charge by a jury he was found guilty of robbery, as charged in the indictment, and that he was twenty-two years of age. The court adjudged him guilty of robbery, and that he be committed to the custody of the board of managers of the Indiana Reformatory at Jeffersonville, Indiana, as guilty of the crime of robbery, for a term not exceeding fourteen years nor less than two years, subject to the rules and regulations established by said board for said reformatory, and that the defendant’s age was twenty-two years.

Error is assigned upon the rulings overruling the motion for a venire de novo, and for a new trial. The reasons urged in support of both motions are that the verdict and judgment are both unauthorized by law, unless what is commonly called the “Reformatory Act,” approved Feb. 26, 1897, is valid, and that said act is unconstitutional and void.

The same reasons are urged in this case against the constitutionality of the act here in question that were urged in Miller v. State, 149 Ind. 607. On the authority of that case, we hold that such reasons cannot prevail, and that the act is constitutional, and that the trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a venire de novo, and the motion for a new trial. The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 N.E. 1064, 150 Ind. 696, 1898 Ind. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hunter-v-state-ind-1898.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack