State v. Satterfield

New York Court of General Session of the Peace

State v. Satterfield

100 A. 473, 29 Del. 443, 6 Boyce 443, 1917 Del. LEXIS 14

CourtNew York Court of General Session of the Peace

DecidedFebruary 12, 1917

DocketNo. 72

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 100 A. 473 (State v. Satterfield) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of General Session of the Peace primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Satterfield, 100 A. 473, 29 Del. 443, 6 Boyce 443, 1917 Del. LEXIS 14 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1917).

Pincite

Opinion

Boyce, J.,

delivering the opinion of the court:

[1] The several acts mentioned in the. statute, and indictable as distinct offenses, are connected with the same general offense, and subject to the same punishment, and the fact that the count charges that the offense was committed in more than one way, it does not, under a statute like the one in question, make the count duplicitous.

[2] Unnecessary words in an indictment, otherwise sufficient, should not be permitted to vitiate the indictment; but such words should be rejected as surplusage. In case a misdemeanor is alleged to have been done feloniously, the allegation is surplusage, contrary to State v. Darrah, Houst. Cr. Cas. 112, and should be rejected as such, if the indictment, or count, is otherwise good. Com. v. Squire, 1 Metc. (Mass.) 258; State v. Edwards, 90 N. C. 710; State v. Sparks, 78 Md. 166.

[3] The fourth count is defective for the reason conceded in State v. Boggs, 4 Pennewill 95, 53 Atl. 360, and is quashed.

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