Newell v. State

2 Conn. 38
Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided November 15, 1816·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Swirr, Ch. J.

The question is, what is intended by exhibiting a complaint, or information, in criminal cases. The presentment of the complaint, signed by some proper informing officer, to a court or public officer, who has authority to receive the same, and to issue a warrant te apprehend the offender, and bring him to trial, must be a compliance with the law. In this case, a justice of the peace had power to cause the offender to be apprehended; and though be had not final cognizance of the offence, he had pow er to take proper measures to cause him to appear before a court of competent jurisdiction to try him. To exhibit the information to such public officer, is a strict and literal compliance with the statute; and such has been the immemorial and uniform usage in the state. And unless such power is given to single ministers of justice, a very convenient opportunity would often be afforded to offenders, to escape from justice.

I think there is no error in the judgment complained of.

In this opinion the other Judges severally concurred.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Newell v. State, 2 Conn. 38 (Colo. 1816).

2 Conn. 38 (Newell v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Blakeney v. Commissioner of Correction
706 A.2d 989 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1998)
State v. Kruelski
677 A.2d 951 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1996)
People v. Capestany
37 P.R. 547 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
Pueblo v. Capestany
37 P.R. Dec. 586 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1928)
State v. Simpson
76 N.E. 544 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1906)
Rouse v. State
44 Fla. 148 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1902)
Plumb v. Griffin
50 A. 1 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1901)