¶1The accidental mutilation of the indictment by cutting it into several pieces does not destroy its identity or prevent its being restored to a condition in which it can be rendered intelligible and substantially complete in all essential particulars. When the parts are united, as can readily be done without danger of mistake, by joining together words which have been severed, there will be no material omission of any averment, or even word, contained in the indictment as presented in court by the grand jury. This is manifest from inspection. It cannot therefore be properly said that the indictment is destroyed or in such condition as to be rendered unfit to be the basis of further proceedings. Exceptions overruled.
97 Mass. 598
Commonwealth v. Roland
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Decided November 15, 1867
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · decided 1867-11-15
Indictment in the form usual under the Gen. Sts. c. 87, foi keeping a liquor nuisance. In the superior court a verdict of guilty was returned against the defendant, who at the time of the motion of the attorney for the government for sentence, objected, and filed a motion in arrest of judgment, for the alleged reason that since the trial the indictment had been so mutilated that sentence could not be pronounced thereupon.
Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently January 1943
1 state decisions
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1867-11-15
View the full empirical analysis of this case →