State v. O'Donnell

17 A. 66, 81 Me. 271, 1889 Me. LEXIS 18
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine·Decided January 22, 1889·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Virgin, J.

An indictment must allege a particular day on which the offense was committed, even if it be set out with a continuando. Wells v. Commonwealth, 12 Gray, 326; Shorey v. Chandler, 80 Maine, 409; State v. Small, 80 Maine, 452.

The indictment in hand fixes the day at a date thirteen years before Maine became a sovereign state and more than forty years before the enactment of the statute which created the offense charged, — and is practically an impossible date and hence no date.

Moreover, the nol pros, struck out the allegation of any date, except those days named in the continuando, which leaves the indictment fatally defective on demurrer as was decided in the cases above cited.

Exceptions sustained.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Daneorth, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.

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

State v. O'Donnell, 17 A. 66, 81 Me. 271, 1889 Me. LEXIS 18 (Me. 1889).

17 A. 66 (State v. O'Donnell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilson v. State
184 So. 31 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
Hunt v. State
159 N.E. 149 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1927)
State v. Papernak
181 N.W. 955 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1921)
People v. Weiss
168 Ill. App. 502 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
Terrell v. State
75 N.E. 884 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1905)