Autopsy

Dissection of a dead body for the purpose of ascertaining the cause, seat, or nature of a disease; a post mortem examination.

See Dead Body. AUTRE VIE (Fr.). The life of another. See Estate pub Autre Vie. AUTREFOIS ACQUIT (Fr. formerly acquitted). A plea made by a defendant indicted for a crime or misdemeanor, that he The constitution of the United States, Amend, art. 5, provides that no person shall be subject for the same offence to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb. This is simply a re-enactment of the common-law. The same provision is to be found in the constitution of almost all if not of every state, and if not in the constitution the same principles are probably declared by legislative act; so that they must be regarded as fundamental doctrines in every state; 2 Kent 12. See U. S. v. Perez, 9 Wheat. (U. S.) 579, 6 L. Ed. 105; U. S. v. Gibert, 2 Sumn. 19, Fed. Cas. No. 15,204; Com. v. Bowden, 9 Mass. 494; People v. Goodwin, IS Johns. (N. Y.) 187,' 9 Am. Dec. 203; State v. Hall, 9 N. J. L. 256. See, however, Com. v^Cook, 6 S. & R. (Pa.) 577, 9 Am. Dec. 465; State v. Garrigues, 2 N. C. 241; Whart. Crim. PI. § 490. This plea is founded upon the maxim, nemo debet Us vexari pro eadem causa; Broom, Leg. Max. 205. The court, however, must have been competent, having jurisdiction and the proceedings regular; Mc Neil v. State, 29 Tex. App. 48, 14 S. W. 393; Blyew v. Com., 91 Ky. 200, 15 S. W. 356; but see Powell v. State, 89 Ala. 172, 8 South. 109. To be a bar, the acquittal must have been after a trial; Marston v. Jenness, 11 N. H. 156; State v. Odell, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 156; State v. Tindal, 5 Harr. (Del.) 488; Hassell v. Nutt, 14 Tex. 260; and by verdict of a jury on a valid indictment; 4 Bla. Com. 335; People v. Barrett, 1 Johns. (N. Y.) 66; Heikes v. Com., 26 Pa. 513; State v. Wilson, 39 Mo. App. 187. In Pennsylvania and some other states, the discharge of a jury, even in a capital case, before verdict, except in case of absolute necessity, will support the plea; Com. v. Clue, 3 Rawle (Pa.) 498; State v. Mc Gimsey, 80 N. C. 377, 30 Am. Rep. 90; but the prisoner's consent to the discharge of a previous jury is a sufficient answer; Peiffer v. Com., 15 Pa. 468, 53 Am. Dec. 605. In the United States courts and in some states, the separation of the jury when it takes place in the exercise of a sound discretion is no bar to a second trial; Whart. Cr. PI. § 499; Clark, Cr. Law 373; Simmons v. U. S., 142 U. S. 148, 12 Sup. Ct. 171, 35 L. Ed. 968; as where the jury is discharged because of the sickness of a juror; People v. Ross, S5 Gil. 383, 24 Pac. 7S9; State v. Hazledahl, 2 N. D. 521, 52 N. W. 315, 16 L. R. A. 150; see Stocks v. State, 91 Ga. 831, 18 S. E. 847; or because they failed to agree; Logan v. U. S., 144 U. S. 203, 12 Sup. Ct. 617, 36 L. Ed. 429; State v. Whitson, 111 N. O. 695, 16 S. E. 332. There must be an acquittal of the offence charged in law and in fact; Com. v. Myers, 1 Va. Cas. 188; Wortham v. Com., 5 Rand. (Va.) 669; Com. v. Goddard, 13 Mass. 457; Mc Creary v. Com., 29 Pa. 323; People v. the offences charged in the two indictments be perfectly distinct in point of law, however clearly they may be connected in fact; Burton v. U. S., 202 U. S. 345, 26 Sup. Ct. CSS, 50 L. Ed. 1057, G Ann. Cas. 3G2, citing Com. v. Roby, 12 Tick. (Mass.) 502; but an acquittal is conclusive; Slaughter v. State, G Humphr. (Tenn.) 410; Com. v. Cuminings, 3 Cush. (Mass.) 212, 50 Am. Dec. 732; State v. Brown, 1G Conn. 54; State v. Jones, 7 Ga. 422; State v. Johnson, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 533; State v. Wright, 3 Brev. (S. C.) 421; State v. Spear, G Mo. G44; Dillard's Adin'r v. Moore, 7 Ark. 1G9; State v. De Hart, 7 N. J. E. 172; State v. Anderson, 3 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 751: State v. Burris, 3 Tex. 118; Lawyer v. Smith, 1 Denio (N. Y.) 207. If a nolle prosequi is entered without the prisoner's consent after issue is joined and the jury sworn, it is a bar to a subsequent indictment for the same offence; Franklin v. State, 85 Ga. 570, 11 S. E. 87G; but the jeopardy does not begin until the jury is sworn, prior to that a nol. pros, may be entered without prejudice; State v. Paterno, 43 L. Ann. 514, 9 South. 442; a nol. pros, of two of three indictments is no bar to a prosecution under the third; O'Brien v. State, 91 Ala. 25, 8 South. 5G0. In Missouri the conviction of murder in the second degree, under an indictment for murder in the first degree, constitutes no bar to trial and conviction for murder in the first degree, upon a new trial, when the first verdict has been set aside; State v. Anderson, 89 Mo. 312, 1 S. W. 135. Proceedings by state tribunals are no bar to court-niai'tial instituted by the military authorities of the United States; 3 Opin. Atty.-Genl. 750; Stiener's Case, 6 id. 413; but a judgment of conviction by a military court, established by law in an insurgent state, is a bar to a subsequent prosecution by a state court for the same offence; Coleman v. Tennessee, 97 U. S. 509, 24 L. Ed. HIS. See Courts-Martial. The plea must set out the former record, and show the identity of the offence and of the person by proper averments; Hawk. PI. Cr. b. 2, c. 3G; Atkins v. State, 1G Ark. 5GS; Wilson v. State, 24 Conn. 57. The true test of whether a plea of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict is a sufficient bar in any particular case is whether the evidence necessary to support the second indictment would have been sufficient to procure a legal conviction upon the first; 1 Bish. Cr. L. 1012; 3 B. & C. 502; Com. v. Roby, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 504; State v. Williams, 45 La. Ann. 93G, 12 South. 932. Thus, if a prisoner indicted for burglariously breaking and entering a house and stealing therein certain goods of A is acquitted, he cannot plead this acquittal in bar of a subsequent indictment for burglariously break- Alexander v. State, 21 Tex. App. 40G, W. 139, 57 Am. Rep. G17. The plea of autrefois acquit involvetions of mixed law and fa< t, and is properly referred to the jury when not demurrable on its face; State v. Williams, 45 La. Ann. 93G, 12 South. 932. The plea in the celebrated case of Regina v. Bird, 5 Cox Cr. Cas. 12, Tempi. & M 2 Den. Cr. Cas. 224, is of peculiar value as a precedent. See Jeopardy. AUTREFOIS ATTAINT (Fr. formerly attainted). A plea that the defendant has been attainted for one felony, and cannot, therefore, be criminally prosecuted for another; 4 Bla. Com. 33G; 12 Mod. 109; R. & R. 268. This is not a good plea in bar in the United States, nor in England in modern law; 1 Bish. Cr. L. § G92; Singleton v. State, 71 Miss. 782, 16 South. 295, 42 Am. St. Rep. 488; Gaines v. State I S. W. G23; contra. Ex parte Myers, -14 Mo. 279; State v. Jolly, 9G Mo. 435, 9 S. W. S97. See State v. Mc Carty, 1 Bay (S. C.) 334. AUTREFOIS CONVICT (Fr. formerly convicted). A plea made by a defendant indicted for a crime or misdemeanor, that he has formerly been tried and convicted of the same. This plea is substantially the same in form as the plea of autrefois acquit, and is grounded on the same principle, viz.: that no man's life or liberty shall be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence; Whart Cr. PI. § 435; 1 Bish. Cr. Law g 651: State v. Cooper. 13 X. J. L. 361, 25 Am. Dec. 490; U. S. v. Keen, 1 Mc Lean 429, Fed. Cas. No. 15,510; State v. Nelson, 7 Ala. 610; State v. Chaffin. 2 Swan (Tenn.) 493; State v. Parish. 43 Wis. 395. A plea of autrefois convict, which shows that the judgment on the former indictment has been reversed for error in the judgment, is not a good bar to another indictment for the same offence; Cooley's Const. Lim. 326; Territory v. Dorman. 1 Ariz. 56, 2.". Pac. 516; People v. Schmidt, 64 Cal. 260, 30 Par. 814; State v. Rhodes. 112 N. C. 857, 17 s. E. 164; otherwise, if the reversal were not for Insufficiency in the indictment nor for error at the trial, but for matter subsequent, and dehors both the conviction and the judgment; Hartung v. People. 26 N. Y. 167. a prior conviction before a justice of the peace. and a performance of the sentence, constitute a bar to an indictment for the same offence, although the complaint on which the justice proceeded was so defective that his judgment might have been reversed for error; Com. v. Loud, 3 Mete. (Mass.):;28, 37 Am. Dec. 139. Where a person has been convicted for failing to support his wife and betime of the second offence he was not in prison on account of his first sentence; People v. Hodgson, 126 N. Y. 647, 27 N. E. 378. Where one has been convicted of an assault but discharged without sentence on giving security for good behavior, he cannot afterwards be convicted on an indictment for the same assault; 24 Q. B. Div. 423. See Autrefois Acquit. A U X I L I U M (Lat.). An aid; services paid by the tenant to his lord. Auxilium ad ftlium militem faciendum, vel ad filiam maritandam. (An aid for making the lord's son a knight, or for marrying his daughter.) Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 62. AUXILIUM CURI/E. An order of the court summoning one party, at the suit and request of another, to appear and warrant something. Kenn. Par. Ant. 477.

The dissection of a dead body for the purpose of inquiring into the causcoofdeath. Pub. St, Mass. 1882, p. 1288.