Lee v. State

134 N.E. 866, 192 Ind. 13, 1922 Ind. LEXIS 29
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 1922
DocketNo. 24,007
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 134 N.E. 866 (Lee 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
Lee v. State, 134 N.E. 866, 192 Ind. 13, 1922 Ind. LEXIS 29 (Ind. 1922).

Opinion

Townsend, J.

Appellant was convicted in the city-court of Muncie for a violation of §4, Acts 1917 p. 15, §8356a et seq. Burns’ Supp. 1918. He appealed to the circuit court and was again convicted.

In the circuit court he pleaded in abatement, that the grand jury was in session when the affidavit was filed in the city court. A demurrer was sustained to this plea. This plea is based on the following section of our statutes:

“All public offenses, except treason and murder, may be prosecuted in the circuit or criminal court, by affidavit filed in term time, in all cases except when the grand jury is in session or a prosecution by indictment or affidavit for the same offense is pending at the time of the filing of such affidavit.” §1989 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, §118.

Appellant’s contention is that he had a right to have this grand jury pass upon the question of whether a charge should be lodged against him. No one has such right further than is clearly given by statute; for all the right there is in this behalf is purely legislative.

The Constitution provides that the ■ legislature “may modify or abolish the grand jury system.” §17, Art. 7. For a cursory history of legislative modification of the grand jury system, see State v. Roberts (1906), 166 Ind. 585, 590, 591, 77 N. E. 1093.

The right being purely legislative, the above statute must be confined to cases filed in circuit and criminal courts, which have power to call and empanel grand juries

Analogous cases are found which were decided when affidavit and information were required. It was then held that one who was prosecuted and convicted on an affidavit before'a justice of the peace could be tried on appeal on that affidavit without an information. Pratt [15]*15V. State (1856), 7 Ind. 625; Wachstetter v. State (1873), 42 Ind. 166; Hosea V. State (1874), 47 Ind. 180.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

State v. Swafford
237 N.E.2d 580 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1968)
King v. State
139 N.E.2d 547 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1957)
Stevens v. State
105 N.E.2d 332 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1952)
State Ex Rel. Poindexter v. Reeves
104 N.E.2d 735 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1952)
Parish v. State
141 N.E. 786 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1923)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 N.E. 866, 192 Ind. 13, 1922 Ind. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-state-ind-1922.