Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

192 Ind. 13

Lee v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided March 29, 1922

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1922-03-29

<p>Indictment and Information. — Prosecution in City Court. — . Bight to Have Grand Jury Determine Filing of Charge. — StaU •Mies. — A defendant, charged in the city court with violating Acts 1917 p. 15, §4, (§8356d Burns’ Supp. 1918), was not entitled to have the grand jury, in session at the time the affidavit was filed in the city court, pass on the question of whether a charge should be lodged against him, under §1989 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, §118, providing that all public offenses, except murder and treason, may be prosecuted in the circuit or criminal court, by affidavit filed in term time, in all cases except when the grand jury is in session -or a prosecution by indictment or affidavit for the same offense is pending at the time of the filing of the affidavit; such statute having application to- cases filed in circuit and criminal courts, which have power to call and empanel grand juries.</p>

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““All public offenses, except treason and murder, may be prosecuted in the circuit or criminal court, by affidavit filed in term time, in all cases except when the grand jury is in session or a prosecution by indictment or affidavit for the same offense is pending at the time of the filing of such affidavit.””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State Ex Rel. Poindexter v. Reeves, State v. Swafford

Relies on State v. Roberts · Wachstetter v. State · Hosea v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Affirmed · Decided 1922-03-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently June 1968

5 state decisions

3019221930194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Townsend, J.

¶1Appellant was convicted in the city-court of Muncie for a violation of §4, Acts 1917 p. 15, §8356a et seq. Burns’ Supp. 1918. He appealed to the circuit court and was again convicted.

¶2In the circuit court he pleaded in abatement, that the grand jury was in session when the affidavit was filed in the city court. A demurrer was sustained to this plea. This plea is based on the following section of our statutes:

¶3“All public offenses, except treason and murder, may be prosecuted in the circuit or criminal court, by affidavit filed in term time, in all cases except when the grand jury is in session or a prosecution by indictment or affidavit for the same offense is pending at the time of the filing of such affidavit.” §1989 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, §118.

¶4Appellant’s contention is that he had a right to have this grand jury pass upon the question of whether a charge should be lodged against him. No one has such right further than is clearly given by statute; for all the right there is in this behalf is purely legislative.

¶5The Constitution provides that the ■ legislature “may modify or abolish the grand jury system.” §17, Art. 7. For a cursory history of legislative modification of the grand jury system, see State v. Roberts (1906), 166 Ind. 585, 590, 591, 77 N. E. 1093.

¶6The right being purely legislative, the above statute must be confined to cases filed in circuit and criminal courts, which have power to call and empanel grand juries

¶7Analogous cases are found which were decided when affidavit and information were required. It was then held that one who was prosecuted and convicted on an affidavit before'a justice of the peace could be tried on appeal on that affidavit without an information. Pratt *15V. State (1856), 7 Ind. 625; Wachstetter v. State (1873), 42 Ind. 166; Hosea V. State (1874), 47 Ind. 180.

¶8Judgment affirmed.

/192/ind/13 · .json · Public domain