Sewall v. State

Ohio Supreme Court

Sewall v. State

1 Wright 483, 1 Ohio Ch. 483

DecidedApril 15, 1834

StatusPublished

This text of 1 Wright 483 (Sewall v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sewall v. State, 1 Wright 483, 1 Ohio Ch. 483 (Ohio 1834).

Pincite

Opinion

BY THE COURT,

stopping Tracy in reply. This indictment attains to no certainty, not even to a common intent. It is necessary 484] * that the state attain to such certainty as to notify the defendant what he is to answer, in order that he may shape his defence to meet it, and be enabled to plead in bar of any future prosecution, an acquittal or conviction under it. This indictment does not do so ; it should set forth the existing mark, and describe its alteration, or the manner as near as may be it is alleged to be defaced.

The judgment is reversed.

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

BY THE COURT,

stopping Tracy in reply. This indictment attains to no certainty, not even to a common intent. It is necessary 484] * that the state attain to such certainty as to notify the defendant what he is to answer, in order that he may shape his defence to meet it, and be enabled to plead in bar of any future prosecution, an acquittal or conviction under it. This indictment does not do so ; it should set forth the existing mark, and describe its alteration, or the manner as near as may be it is alleged to be defaced.

The judgment is reversed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 Wright 483, 1 Ohio Ch. 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sewall-v-state-ohio-1834.