Case ID: scl_25/html/0031-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Curia,per O’Neall, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The State v. William Thompson.
    After a prisoner has pleaded not guilty, he may not avail himself of misnomer in the indictment, either on his trial, or in arrest of judgment, or on motion for a new trial.
    Before O’Neall, J., at Lancaster, Fall Term, 1839.
    The prisoner was convicted of petit larceny. In the body of the indictment he was called by the name of William Foster, instead of William Thompson. The indorsement was in his true name. He pleaded to the indictment, and the case had gone to the jury, and had been argued in part, before it was objected that William -Foster, and not the prisoner, was the person charged; The presiding judge thought that the objection, if good in any shape after a plea of not guilty, could only be taken advantage of in arrest of judgment.
    Defendant moved, in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, on the following grounds:
    1. Because the indictment charges the offence to have been committed by William Foster; not by the prisoner.
    2. Because his Honor charged the jury that a defect in the indictment could not avail the prisoner on his trial before them.
    
      
      Wright and Clinton, for the motion;
    Player, contra.
   Curia,per O’Neall, J.

refused both motions; adhering to the rule (in 1 Chitty Cr. L. 202,) that “ the name and addition of the party indicted ought regularly to be truly inserted in every indictment: but, whatever mistake may be made in these respects, if the defendant appears and pleads not guilty, be cannot afterwards take advantage of the error.” It was observed that there was no hardship in the rule; for the prisoner lost no advantage or privilege by it on his. trial, and, if he had -need afterwards to resort to a plea of aictre-foits convict, he would be allowed to show that he was the same person heretofore convicted by the name of William Foster.

The Court concurred unanimously.