State v. Tibbetts

29 A. 979, 86 Me. 189, 1893 Me. LEXIS 101
CourtSupreme Judicial Court of Maine
DecidedDecember 26, 1893
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 29 A. 979 (State v. Tibbetts) 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. Tibbetts, 29 A. 979, 86 Me. 189, 1893 Me. LEXIS 101 (Me. 1893).

Opinion

Haskell, J.

Complaint before a magistrate for hunting and killing deer in violation of the game laws. The offense is charged in two several counts averring the destruction of one deer in each count at different times. A trial was had upon the plea of not guilty, and the defendant was convicted and fined eighty dollars and costs. From this sentence the defendant appealed and was again tried in the court below and convicted. He now moves in arrest of judgment:

I. Because the magistrate imposed a fine in excess of his jurisdiction. Suppose he did. One remedy was by appeal, and the defendant has availed himself of it.

II. Because a verdict was not taken upon each count separately. It was taken upon each count. A general verdict of guilty on several counts is a verdict on all, and therefore on each; and any injustice from such procedure cannot be remedied by motion in arrest of judgment, but may be on motion that the verdict be set aside as unwarranted by the evidence. State v. Hood, 51 Maine, 363.

If one count be good, judgment will not be arrested. State v. Hadlock, 43 Maine, 282.

If, however, several substantive offenses be charged in separate counts, and a conviction be had upon all by a general verdict of guilty, judgment may be arrested upon those that are bad, for it "may be several, though the verdict is general.” State v. Burke, 38 Maine, 574. Motions in arrest of judgment reach the sufficiency of the charge, not the justice of the verdict. State v. Rounds, 76 Maine, 123-126.

[191]*191III. Because the first count does not allege the act to have been unlawfully or maliciously done. These specific words need not be averred. The allegation against the peace and contrary to the statute is an equivalent of the former, and the latter is not made an element of the offense by the statute. Both counts being valid, judgment must go on both.

Exceptions overruled. Judgment for the State.

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

Related

State v. Lovejoy
493 A.2d 1035 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1985)
State v. Knowles
371 A.2d 624 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1977)
State v. Chase
99 A.2d 71 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1953)
Burnett v. State
166 N.E. 430 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1929)
People v. Stricker
170 Ill. App. 485 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1912)
McCaskill v. State
55 Fla. 117 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1908)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A. 979, 86 Me. 189, 1893 Me. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-tibbetts-me-1893.