midpage

State v. O'DonnellState v. O'Donnell

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Jan 22, 1889
Reporters:
, ,
Before:
Virgin
Virgin, J.

An indictment must allege a particular day on which the offense ‍‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍was committed, even if it be set out with a continuando. Wells v. Commonwealth, 12 Gray, 326; Shorey v. Chandler, 80 Maine, 409; State v. Small, 80 Maine, 452.

The indictment in hand fixes the ‍‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍day at a date thirteen years before Maine became a sovereign state and more than forty years before the enactment of the ‍‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍statute which created the offense charged, — and is practically an impossible date and hence no date.

Moreover, the nol pros, struck out the allegation ‍‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍of any date, except those days named in the continuando, which leaves the indictment fatally defective on demurrer as was decided in the cases ‍‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌​‌​​​​‌​​‌‌​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​​​‌‌‌‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‍above cited.

Exceptions sustained.

Peters, C. J., Walton, Daneorth, Emery and Haskell, JJ., concurred.

Case Details

Case Name: State v. O'Donnell
Court Name: Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
Date Published: Jan 22, 1889
Citations: 17 A. 66; 81 Me. 271; 1889 Me. LEXIS 18
Court Abbreviation: Me.
Log In