55 A. 323 | R.I. | 1903
The defendant moves in arrest of judgment, on the ground that the complainant is dead.
The record shows that one John P. Burdick, of Westerly, instituted a criminal complaint against the defendant on the 9th day of August, 1901, under the provision of Gen. Laws R.I. cap. 281, § 24, charging him with nonsupport of his children. The complainant, not being a public official authorized by section 25 of said chapter to make such complaint, gave surety for costs in the usual way. See State v. Woodmansee,
The record further shows that the defendant was tried and convicted of said offence in the District Court of the Third Judicial District; that he thereupon took an appeal to the Common Pleas Division, where, upon trial by a jury, he was again convicted of said offence. He then filed in this court a petition for new trial, and pending this petition the complainant has deceased, and the defendant now moves in arrest of judgment as aforesaid.
We think it is clear that this motion must be denied. A motion in arrest of judgment raises only those objections which are apparent upon the record, and such as would be fatal on demurrer. State v. Paul,
The position taken by defendant's counsel, that the death of the complainant operates as an abatement of the proceeding, is untenable. The state is the real party in all criminal prosecutions. *180 The individual complainant simply sets the criminal law in operation, as he may rightfully do, but the State is the real prosecutor. It is the peace and dignity of the State which has been violated in the commission of any crime or offence, and hence no one but the State can, in any true sense, prosecute the offender for such a wrong. It is true that private complainants are required to become responsible for the costs to which the State may be subjected in case the prosecution fail. This requirement is probably for the purpose of preventing the bringing of complaints which may be instigated by personal spite or malice, or of bringing those which are not well founded in fact. But the mere fact that a private individual is the complainant does not have the effect to render the case any the less a State case than though it were brought by a chief of police or any other prosecuting officer.
Defendant's counsel further argues that, because of the death of said Burdick, there remains neither complainant nor prosecutor in the case, and also that there is now no person qualified or authorized to further prosecute the complaint. We cannot agree to this. We see no reason why the surety in the complaint may not, for his own protection, as well as in the interest of public justice, appear and move for sentence, or take such further proceedings as may be necessary to dispose of the case. We also see no reason why the town authorities of Westerly may not do likewise. It would certainly be a reproach to our criminal system if, merely by the death of a complainant, a defendant who has been finally found guilty of an offence should escape punishment therefor. But we are of the opinion that no such condition in fact exists. Counsel for defendant has cited no authority, nor have we been able to find any, in support of the position taken by him.
The case of State v. Sullivan,
The motion in arrest of judgment is denied.