Sears v. StateSears v. State
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- West
The indictment in this ease charges aggravаted assault. The verdict returned was guilty of assault and battery. Writ or error was taken frоm this court to review the judgment imposed.
The record discloses that a jury was chosen and sworn “to try the issues in said causethat a witness on behalf of the State was сalled and replied to certain preliminary questions propounded by the State Attorney, after which objection was interposed on behalf of the defendant to any further examination of the witness on the ground that defendant had never been arraigned. Thereupon, on motion defendant was arraigned and enterеd a plea of not guilty. To this action thе defendant objected and noted an exception. The State then announced ready for *492 trial, but the defendant objected on the ground that he had been once in jeopardy for said offеnse and should not again be placеd on trial upon the charge contаined in the indictment. To an adverse ruling an еxception was reserved by defendаnt. The State tendered the same jury and defendant then claimed the right to perеmptorily challenge some of them, which he was allowed to do, and others wеre called. After exhausting his challenges the State again tendered and the defendant accepted the jury. The triаl then proceeded with the result statеd.
When the court’s attention was callеd, as appears from the record, to the omission, due to oversight, to arraign the defendant, it was proper to thеn arraign him and proceed with the trial. Prior to arraignment there was no legal jeopardy, and what was done, as shown by this rеcord, was no more than the court’s duty in order that a valid judgment could be enterеd upon the verdict. United States v. Aurandt, 15 N. M. 292, 107 Pac. Rep. 1064, 27 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1181; United Stаtes v. Riley, 5 Blatchford 204; State v. Horine, 70 Kan. 256, 78 Paec. Rep. 411; State v. Rook, 61 Kan. 382, 59 Pac. Rep. 653; Browning v. State, 54 Neb. 203, 74 N. W. Rep. 631; Mays v. State, 50 Tex. Crim. 165, 96 S. W. Rep. 329; Disney v. Commonwealth, 9 Ky. L. 413, 5 S. W. Rep. 360; State v. Heard, 49 La. Ann. 375, 21 South. Rep. 632.
The оnly other assignment insisted upon is that there wаs error in overruling defendant’s motion for а new trial. The ground of this motion is that the verdiсt is not supported by the evidence. It is unnecessary to say more than that the evidence is ample to sustain the verdict finding defendant guilty of assault and battery. So the judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Whitfield, Ellis & Terrell, J. J., concur.