Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1898-02-03
CROOK WINS HIS CASE.
AND SENTENCED TO A TERM OF 6 YEARS.


the Proceedings Court Items.
The Supreme Court handed down an
opinion today In the case of the State
OF Utah against Joseph e.. Crook. di-
rectlnS that the cause be ren,anded and
with instructions to the tiial court to
vacate and sot aside the verdict and
judgment and to discharge the defend
ant
The record Of the case shows that
In September. 1896. Crook was arrested
on the complaint of Alexander Will
kins. charged with having administered
TO married woman named Rachael
Davis, a certain drug and also with
edvising her to use an instrument for
the purpose of procuring n miscarriage.
The case was brought before Charles
DeMoisey justice of the peace for the
precinct of Provo, Utah county. The
State put In It's testimony at the con
oiusion Of which, the defendant was
held In bonds of $500
In October. 1896, the prosecuting at
torney for Utah county flied an lnfor-
nation in the Fourth district court re-
citing that Crook had been duly
bound over, etc. and charging him
with the same offense for which he had
been held by the Justices court.
In the Justices docket an entry was
made Of the defendant being held on
the charge named in the complaint, but
ON the back of the complaint, the fol-
lowing order was entered:
1T appearing to me that the offense
of procuring an abortion has been COM
mitted and that there Is sufficient cause
to believe the defendant, Joseph s.
Crook. guilty thereof, | order that he
be held to answer the same, etc. These
were filed along with the rest of the
papers.
on the 10th of October. 1895, the de-
PENDANT by his attorney filed de-
murrer to the information, upon the
ground that the facts shown therein
did not constitute a public offense, and
did not conform to the requirements
OF sections 100 and 151 of the code OF
criminal procedure.
The demurrer was argued before
District Judge A. C. Hatch and sus-
tanned, the court further ordering that
Crook be discharged.
In June 1897, Crook was re-arrested
on the same charge, and by Justice
J Il Page held to the district court.
the preliminary hearing as at the first.
and the second information filed in the
upper court alleged, in the same terms.
the offense for which he had before
been charged with.
Crook entered a plea of former ao-
uuittal. alleging that he had been
charged with the same offense and
had been acquitted and discharged.
The court overruled the motion and
without waving the plea of former
ocquittsl, Crook pleaded not guilty to
the charge and the trial proceeded
with. resulting in the jury finding him
guilty, when Judge w. N. Dusenberry
sentenced him to six years in the state
prison. From this judgment Crook
appealed.
The court holds that the defendants
plea of former acquittal and his dis
charge. without Judge Hatch making
an order directing another Information
be filed, or that the case be submitted
to the grand jury was, under the
facts shown, sufficient bar to further
N osecution.
The lower court had held that the
sustaining of the demurrer and dis
charging the defendant, without d.
recting the filing of another informa-
ton, did not amount to an acquittal,
but the Supreme Court holds this to be
error. After quoting a number of
authorities bearing on this point, the
when the Judgment on the demurrer
was rendered, there being no direction
for new information or resubmission,
II became and was a bar to another
prosecution for the same offense. The
| Legislature seems. in the section re-
ferred to- to have made a second prose
cution In a case of demurrer sustained.
| depend upon the judicial opinion OF the
| court that the objection raised by the
| demurrer may be avoided in a new
information, and in the absence Of such
an opinion the prosecution for that Of
| Tense Is at an end"
As to the order of the Justice as en-
| tered upon the docket, the court finds
| II to he sufficient to have warranted
| the filing of the information and that
| the lower court erred in not so in
| structing the jury. The court further
hol6s that the terms procuring an
! abortion and procuring mis-
carriage" arr substantially the same
thing Wien used in characterizing the
| crime, but in charging the criminal act
OF destroying the feotus, Mt any time
before birth, 1t is necessary TO charge
the offense named in the statute which
declares the act a crime Concluding.
tn court says:
"There was undisputable proof on the
subject of the docket order which
would justify the filing of the informa-
ton to which the demurrer was en-
entered, and afterwards sustained"
at Is manifest that II a rsy. trial be
granted, the record of the proceedings
below would remain unchanged and a
verdict of acquittal, upon plea of
former acauittal. would follow
1--WE therefore direct that the cause
be remanded, with instructions to the
trial court to vacate and set aside the
verdict and judgment, and to discharge
| the defendant"
| The opinion was delivered by Justice
| Miner and concurred in by Chief Jus
tlce Zane and Justice Bartch.