Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 Rob. 744

Young v. Commonwealth

Supreme Court of Virginia

Decided December 15, 1842

Supreme Court of Virginia · decided 1842-12-15

<p>Criminal Law— Commitment—Offense Insufficiently-Specified.—On trial of indictment against W. Y. for felony in stealing a slave, prisoner Is acquitted ; whereupon court makes the following order: “It appearing to the court, by the testimony of witnesses this day examined on the trial ofW. Y. that he is guilty of a misdemeanour, it is ordered that he be remanded to jail, and continued in the custody of the jailor of this court till the next term to answer an indictment then to be preferred against him.” In a bill of exceptions to this order filed by the prisoner, the offence for which he was so remanded is further described as “a misdemeanour under the-statute Suppl. to Rev. Code, ch. 184, § 1, p. 243.,r On writ of habeas corpus sued out by W. Y. the general court holds the commitment illegal, as not sufficiently specifying the offence, and discharges the prisoner out of custody under the same.</p> <p>Same—Same—Remand after Discharge from Illegal Commitment.*—A party being acquitted of felony, and thereupon committed by the circuit court to take his trial for a misdemeanour, this court discharges him on habeas corpus, because the order of commitment does not sufficiently specify the offence ; but it appearing, from the record of the proceedings in the circuit court, that there is reasonable ground to suspect the party of having committed a violation of the criminal law (other than the specific crime of which he was acquitted) proper to be made the subject of judicial enquiry, this court orders the sheriff to take him again into custody and carry him forthwith before a justice of the peace, to be dealt with according to law.</p>

Decided 1842-12-15

¶1The judgment of the general court was as follows:

¶2It seems to the court here, that the order made by the circuit superior court, committing the said William Young to the custody of the sheriff, is illegal and improper, because it does not sufficiently specify the offence with which he was charged and for *450which he was so committed. It is therefore ordered that the said William Young be discharged out of the custody of the sheriff under the sa d order of commitment.

¶3*But it further appearing to this court, from testimony contained in the record of the proceedings against the said William Young in the said circuit court, that there is reasonable ground to suspect him of having committed a violation of the criminal law of this commonwealth, proper to be made the subject of judicial enquiry and proceeding, it is further ordered that the said sheriff do take the said William Young again into his custody, and carry him forthwith before some justice of the peace having jurisdiction of any offence involved in the act for which he was lately tried before the said circuit court (other than the specific crime of which he was acquitted upon that trial), to be dealt with by such justice of the peace according to law.

¶4From so much of the foregoing judgment as directs the said William Young to be taken again into custody by the sheriff of Henrico, and carried before a justice of the peace, judges Homax, Heigh, Duncan, Fry and Clopton dissent; considering the present case not a proper one for the exercise of the power of this court to make such order.

/1/rob/744 · .json · Public domain