State v. Small

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine

State v. Small

14 A. 942, 80 Me. 452, 1888 Me. LEXIS 82

CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine

DecidedJune 23, 1888

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 14 A. 942 (State v. Small) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Judicial Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Small, 14 A. 942, 80 Me. 452, 1888 Me. LEXIS 82 (Me. 1888).

Pincite

Opinion

Virgin, J.

In setting out, in an indictment, an offence whicq consists of a single act, though an allegation of the time of its commission is necessary, still the evidence of such act is not confined to the time alleged, but may be of acts which took place at any time before the finding of the indictment and within the period allowed by the statute of limitations. Bac. Ab. Indict. G. 4; Com. v. Traverse, 11 Allen, 260.

When the offeuce consists of a series of acts, a day certain must be alleged, and the time is material, and no evidence of the commission of the acts on any other day is admissible. Com. v. Elwell, 1 Gray, 462 ; Com. v. Gardner, 7 Gray, 494 ; Com. v. Sullivan, 5 Allen, 513. Such offences are frequently and properly set out with a continuando ; and when so set out, time is material, and evidence is confined to acts which happened within the days alleged. State v. Cofren, 48 Maine, 364-366 ; Com. v. Briggs, 11 Met. 573 ; Com. v. Chisholm, 103 Mass. 213; Com. v. Dunster, 145 Mass. 101; Com. v. Purdy, 5 N. E. Rep. 710. And an indictment containing such allegations may be supported by proof of the commission of the offence during any part of the period named. Com. v. Wood, 4 Gray, 11; Com. v. Connors, 116 Mass. 35.

Exceptions sustained.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Danforth, Libbey and Foster, JJ., concurred.

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

Virgin, J.

In setting out, in an indictment, an offence whicq consists of a single act, though an allegation of the time of its commission is necessary, still the evidence of such act is not confined to the time alleged, but may be of acts which took place at any time before the finding of the indictment and within the period allowed by the statute of limitations. Bac. Ab. Indict. G. 4; Com. v. Traverse, 11 Allen, 260.

When the offeuce consists of a series of acts, a day certain must be alleged, and the time is material, and no evidence of the commission of the acts on any other day is admissible. Com. v. Elwell, 1 Gray, 462 ; Com. v. Gardner, 7 Gray, 494 ; Com. v. Sullivan, 5 Allen, 513. Such offences are frequently and properly set out with a continuando ; and when so set out, time is material, and evidence is confined to acts which happened within the days alleged. State v. Cofren, 48 Maine, 364-366 ; Com. v. Briggs, 11 Met. 573 ; Com. v. Chisholm, 103 Mass. 213; Com. v. Dunster, 145 Mass. 101; Com. v. Purdy, 5 N. E. Rep. 710. And an indictment containing such allegations may be supported by proof of the commission of the offence during any part of the period named. Com. v. Wood, 4 Gray, 11; Com. v. Connors, 116 Mass. 35.

Exceptions sustained.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Danforth, Libbey and Foster, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A. 942, 80 Me. 452, 1888 Me. LEXIS 82, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-small-me-1888.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack