Wynn v. State

1 Blackf. 28, 1818 Ind. LEXIS 11
Indiana Supreme Court·Decided November 13, 1818·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Holman, J.

The objection made to the finding of the juryj [29] in arrest of judgment, is conclusive. The verdict is insufficient to authorize a judgment. It does not find the. defendants guilty. The fining of the defendants, as the jury have expressed themselves, or the finding the amount of the fine as. authorized by the act of assembly, is not finding the defendants guilty.. And. it must be found expressly, and not by intendment, that the defendants are guilty. 7 Bac. Abr. 37. It is a correct position, that finding of but a part of the issue, is insufficient. Co. Litt.. 227, a. 7 Bac. Abr. 7, 18, 20, 23. But here is more than an. omission of part of the issuer There is a total neglect of the whole subject matter put in issue, and no judgment ought to have been given upon it. Nor is the necessity of finding the defendants guilty less evident, or less important since the passage of the act of 1817, relative to crimes and punishments, than it was at common law. The 69th section of that act, rendering it necessary for the jury to find the amount of the fine, does not dispense with the necessity of finding the person charged, to be guilty

Footnotes

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

Wynn v. State, 1 Blackf. 28, 1818 Ind. LEXIS 11 (Ind. 1818).

1 Blackf. 28 (Wynn v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hamey
57 L.R.A. 846 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1902)
Norfolk City v. Cooke
27 Va. 430 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1876)
State v. Turner
19 Iowa 144 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1865)