Steinston v. State

Decided May 15, 1834

Tennessee Supreme Court · decided 1834-05-15

The indictment in this case charges the defendant with committing perjury “in the issue of traverse joined between the State of Tennessee and Matthew P. Dunn, tried in the county court of Weakley county, for an assault and battery.” The indictment does not charge that the issue of traverse joined between the State and Dunn, touching which the defendant gave evidence, was by indictment or presentment. The defendant pleaded not guilty, upon which issue was taken.

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently March 1960

1 state decisions

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1834-05-15

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Peck, J.

¶1delivered the opinion of the court.

¶2The omission to charge in the bill of indictment, that the matter of traverse tried between the State of Tennessee and Dunn, touching which the defendant gave his evidence, was by indictment or presentment, is fatal. The indictment in this case should have shown a case of traverse over which the court had jurisdiction. It does not necessarily follow that the court had jurisdiction of the matter of traverse then and there tried for an assault arid battery. Nothing but inference could sustain the indictment, and we must not be driven to intendment to support prosecutions on behalf of the State. This judgment must be reversed, and judgment on the finding of the jury arrested, and the defendant recognized to appear and answer, &c.

¶3Judgment reversed.