Arraignment

The object of arraignment being to inform the accused of the charge against him and obtain an answer from him was fully subserved in this case, for the accused had taken objections to the second information, and was put to trial before a jury upon that information in all respects as though he had entered a formal plea of not guilty.

In criminal practice. Calling the defendant to the bar of the court, to answer the accusation contained in the indictment. The first step in the proceeding consists in calling the defendant to the bar by his name, and commanding him to hold up his hand. This is done for the purpose of completely identifying the prisoner as the person. named in the indictment. The holding up his hand is not, however, indispensable, for, if the prisoner should refuse to do so, he may be identified by any admission that he is the person intended. 1 W. Bl. 33. See Archb. Crim. PI. (1859 Ed.) 128.. The second step is the reading the indictment to the accused person. This is done to enable him fully to understand the charge to be produced against him. The mode in which it is read is, after saying, "A. B. hold up your hand," to proceed, "You stand indicted by the name of A. B., late of, etc., for that you, on," etc., and then go through the whole of the indictment. The third step is to ask the prisoner: "How say you [A. B.], are you guilty, or not guilty?" Upon this, if the prisoner confesses the charge, and it appears to the satisfaction of the judge that he ijghtly comprehends the effect of his plea, the confession is recorded, and nothing further is done till judgment. If, on the contrary, he answers, "Not guilty," that plea is entered for him, and the clerk or attorney general.replies that he is guilty; when an issue is formed. 1 Mass. 95. If the defendant, when called upon, makes no answer, and it is a matter of doubt whether or not he is mute of malice, the court may direct a jury to be forthwith impaneled and sworn, to try whether the prisoner is mute of malice or ex visitor tione Dei; and such jury may consist of any twelve men who may happen to be present. If a person is found to be mute ex visitatione Dei, the court, in its discretion, vrill use such means as may be sufficient to enable the defendant to understand the charge and make his answer; and if this is found impracticable, a plea of not that he is mute fraudulently and willfully, the court will pass sentence as upon a conviction. 1 Mass. 103; 13 Mass. 299; 9 Mass. 402; 10 Mete. (Mass.) 222; Archb. Crim. PI. (14th London Ed.) 129; Car. Crim. Law, 57; 3 Car. & K. 121; Roscoe, Crim. Ev. (4th London Ed.) 215. See the case of a deaf person who could not be induced to plead (1 Leach, C. C. [4th Ed.] 451); of a person deaf and dumb (1 Leach, C. C. [4th Ed.] 102; 14 Mass. 207; 7 Car. & P. 303; 6 Cox, C. C. 386; 3 Car. & K. 328). See "Peine et Forte Dure."

Calling the defendant to the bar of the court, to answer the accusation contained in the indictment. The first step in the proceeding consists in calling the defendant to the bar by his name, and commanding him to hold up his hand. This Is done for the purpose of completely Identifying the prisoner as the person named in the indictment. The holding up his hand is not, however, indispensable; for if the prisoner should re- The second step is the reading the indictment to the accused person. This is done to enable him fully to understand the charge to be produced against him. The mode in which it is read is, after saying, "A B, hold up your hand," to proceed, "you stand indicted by the name of A B, late of, etc., for that you, on, etc.," and then go through the whole of the indictment. The third step is to ask the prisoner, "How say you (A B), are you guilty, or not guilty? " Upon this, if the prisoner confesses the charge, aod it appears to the satisfaction of the judge that h«.' rightly comprehends the effect of his plea, the confession is recorded, and nothing further is done till judgment. If, on the contrary, he answers, "Not guilty," that plea is entered for him, and the clerk or attorney-general replies that he is guilty; when an issue is formed; Com. v. Battis, 1 Mass. 95; se>e 4 Bla. Com. c. xxv. The holding up of the hand iu no longer obligatory in England, though still maintained in some of the United States with the qualification that if the defendant refuses to hold up his hand, but confesses that he is the person named, it is enough; Whart. Cr. PL & Pr. (9th ed.) § 699. In cases where arraignment of the defendant is required, a failure to arraign is fatal; Graeter v. State, 54 Ind. 159; Grigg v. People, 31 Mich. 471; Anderson v'. State, 3 Pinn. (Wis.) 367; Smith v. Suite, 1 Tex. App. 408; People v. Gaines, 52 Cal. 480. See, contra, State v. Cassady, 12 Kan. 550. In cases of a mistrial (Hayes v. State, 58 Ga. 35), or removal to another court (Davis v. State, 39 Md. 355), there need not be a fresh arraignment. If the defendant, when called upon, makes no answer, and it is a matter of doubt whether or not he is mute of malice, the court may direct a jury to be forthwith impanelled and sworn, to try whether the prisoner is mute of malice or ex visitatione Dei; and such jury may consist of any twelve men who may happen to be present. If a person is found to be mute ex visitatione Dei, the court in its discretion will use such means as may be sufficient to enable the defendant to understand the charge and make his answer; and if this is found impracticable, a plea of not guilty will be entered, and the trial proceed. But if the jury return a verdict that he is mute fraudulently and willfully, the court will pass sentence as upon a conviction; Ellenwood v. Com., 10 Mete. (Mass.) 222; Archb. Cr. PI. 129; 3 C. & K. 121; Rose. Cr. Ev. (8th ed.) 199. See the case of a deaf person who could not be induced to plead; 1 Leach, Cr. Cas. 451; of a person deaf and dumb; id. 102; Com. v. Hill, 14 Mass. 207; 7 C. & P. 503; 6 Cox, Cr. Cas. 386; 3 C. & K. 328; State v. Draper, 1 Houst. Del. Cr. Cas. 291. See Deaf and Dumb; Guilty; God and My Country; Mute; Peine Forte et Dure.

The form or ceremony of arraigning, v. Arraign.

In criminal practice. Calling the defendant to the bar of the court, to answer the accusation contained in the indictment.