State v. Hinton

6 Ala. 864
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedJune 15, 1844
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 6 Ala. 864 (State v. Hinton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Hinton, 6 Ala. 864 (Ala. 1844).

Opinion

ORMOND, J.

The objection taken to the first count of the indictment is, that it should have been alleged that one of the offending parties at least, was married. We do not think it was necessary. The crime of adultery consists in the illicit commerce of two persons of different sexes, one of whom at least, is married, and includes the crime of fornication. The term itself imports the offence without the allegation of any other fact.— The indictment was therefore sufficient.

The finding of the jury on both counts, cannot possibly prejudice the defendants, as the offence charged in the second count is included in the fir§t. Let the judgment be affirmed.

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

Related

People ex rel. Sheldon v. Curtin
27 N.Y. Crim. 535 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1912)
Rich v. State
55 So. 1022 (Alabama Court of Appeals, 1911)
People v. Silva
97 P. 202 (California Court of Appeal, 1908)
United States v. Griego
72 P. 20 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1902)
Crane v. People
65 Ill. App. 492 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1896)
White v. State
74 Ala. 31 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1883)
McLeod v. State
35 Ala. 395 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1860)
Smitherman v. State
27 Ala. 23 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1855)
State v. Glaze
9 Ala. 283 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1846)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
6 Ala. 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hinton-ala-1844.