DocketNumber: No. 14,192
Citation Numbers: 113 Ind. 471
Judges: Mitchell
Filed Date: 2/29/1888
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/24/2022
The grand jury in and for the county of Lake returned an indictment into the Lake Circuit Court, in which they presented George Taylor for having unlawfully sold intoxicating liquor to one Charles Scherer, a minor.. The indictment was signed by “ Thaddeus S. Fancher, deputy prosecuting attorney.” It is insisted that the court erred in overruling a motion to quash, because the indictment was not signed by the prosecuting attorney, as required by section 1669, R. S. 1881.
In Hamilton v. State, 103 Ind. 96, it is said to be an open question in this State whether the failure of the prosecuting attorney to sign an indictment would constitute such a defect or imperfection as would tend to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits of the cause.
The statute above mentioned requires that indictments be signed by the prosecuting attorney, and it provides further— section 1670 — that if the prosecuting attorney have neglected to sign his name, the court must cause him to sign it in the presence of the jury. It would seem, therefore, that indictments should have the sanction of the prosecuting attorney, as well as that of the foreman of the grand jury, and accordingly it was held in Heacock v. State, 42 Ind. 393, where the indictment was not signed by the prosecuting attorney,
The indictment having been verified by the signature of a deputy prosecuting attorney, an officer who is required to act under an official oath, we may well presume that some sufficient reason appeared to the court into which the indictment was returned for the absence of the name of the prosecuting attorney. Maxwell Crim. Procedure, 74.
The objection to the indictment is merely formal, and relates to the manner in which it is signed rather than that it is not signed at all. The case falls fairly within the ruling in Knight v. State, 84 Ind. 73.
On the appellant’s behalf it is contended that the evidence fails to support the finding of guilty, in that it fails to show the specific kind of liquor sold. The charge was the sale of one gill of intoxicating liquor, to wit, blackberry wine.
The prosecuting witness testified that he went into the saloon in which the defendant was employed and called for a drink of blackberry wine. The appellant, without saying anything, set a glass and bottle upon the counter. The witness filled the glass and drank tiic liquor from it, and paid five cents. He testified that he could not tell blackberry brandy
There was no error. The judgment is affirmed, with costs.