No. 11,845 | Ind. | Oct 16, 1884
Lead Opinion
The State appeals in this case from the decision of the court below in sustaining appellee’s motion to quash the indictment. An instrument without any title, but purporting to be an indictment, is copied into the transcript, but how or by what means it obtained a place among the records of the court below, does not appear. It is not shown to have been returned into open court by the grand jury. As the record comes to us, we are not able to say that there was error in quashing the indictment. Sections 1670 and 1672, R. S. 1881; Adams v. State, 11 Ind. 304" court="Ind." date_filed="1858-12-10" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/adams-v-state-7033961?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7033961">11 Ind. 304; Springer v. State, 19 Ind. 180" court="Ind." date_filed="1862-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/springer-v-state-7035957?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7035957">19 Ind. 180; Heacock v. State, 42 Ind. 393" court="Ind." date_filed="1873-05-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/heacock-v-state-7039553?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7039553">42 Ind. 393; Mitchell v. State, 63 Ind. 276" court="Ind." date_filed="1878-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/mitchell-v-state-7042631?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7042631">63 Ind. 276. The law is settled in the cases cited that an indictment should be quashed, or a motion in arrest of judgment sustained, if the indictment was not returned into open court by the grand jury, and that, upon appeal to this court., the record must show affirmatively that it was so returned. It may be that the court below sustained the motion to quash for the reason that the indictment was never, in fact, presented by the grand jury. Be that as it may, it devolves upon a party bringing a.case to this court to show from the record
Affirmed.
Filed Sept. 20, 1884.
Rehearing
On Petition for a Rehearing and Motion for Certiorari.
Counsel for the State accompany their petition for a rehearing with a motion to have the clerk of the court below certify to this court certain portions of the record alleged to be omitted in the transcript. No objection, so far as the record before us is concerned, is made to our decision. The settled practice of this court forbids the correction of the record after a case has been decided. Warner v. Campbell, 39 Ind. 409" court="Ind." date_filed="1872-05-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/warner-v-campbell-7039140?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7039140">39 Ind. 409: Pittsburgh, etc., R. R. Co. v. VanHouten, 48 Ind. 90" court="Ind." date_filed="1874-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/pittsburgh-cincinnati--st-louis-railroad-v-van-houten-7040299?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7040299">48 Ind. 90; State, ex rel., v. Terre Haute, etc., R. R. Co., 64 Ind. 297" court="Ind." date_filed="1878-11-15" href="https://app.midpage.ai/document/state-ex-rel-attorney-general-v-terre-haute--indianapolis-r-r-7042773?utm_source=webapp" opinion_id="7042773">64 Ind. 297.
Both the petition and motion will have to be overruled.