Case Name: Aaron Hartshorn et al. v. The State of Ohio
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1876-12
Citations: 29 Ohio St. 635
Docket Number: 
Parties: Aaron Hartshorn et al. v. The State of Ohio.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 29
Pages: 635–636

Head Matter:
Aaron Hartshorn et al. v. The State of Ohio.
Under the statute against aiding, abetting, or procuring the commission of crimes (S. & S. 266), the offense.of the aider, abettor, or procurer is am independent and substantive offense, in the sense that the offender may he tried and convicted without the trial or conviction of the principal offender; but both offenses may be charged in the same indictment,, and in the same count thereof, and both offenders may be arraigned and tried thereon.'
Motion for the allowance of a writ ot error to the Court of Common Pleas of Mahoning county.
This was an indictment against Aaron Hartshorn and! Hanaford A. Burbank; and the only question raised is as h> the sufficiency of the indictment, the objection being that it charges two separate and distinct offenses in the same-count against two different persons.
The charging part of the indictment is as follows :
“ That Aaron Hartshorn, late of the county of Mahoningaforesaid, on the 23d day of November, a. d. 1876, at the-county of Mahoning aforesaid, in the night season of the same day, to wit, about the hour of eleven at night, in the-county of Mahoning aforesaid, into a certain dwelling-house of one Elizabeth Houseman, there situate and being,, did willfully, maliciously, forcibly, burglariously, and feloniously break and enter, with intent then and there and thereby feloniously, the personal goods, chattels, property, and moneys of the said Elizabeth Houseman, in the said dwelling-house then and there being, feloniously and burglariously to steal, take, and carry away; and the jurors-aforesaid, inquiring as aforesaid, do further present and find, that Hanaford A. Burbank, before the said burglary was committed as aforesaid by the said Aaron Hartshorn,, to wit, on the 23d day of November, A. d. 1875, in the county of Mahoning aforesaid; did feloniously, willfully, and maliciously aid, abet, incite, and procure the said. Aaron Hartshorn, the said burglary and felony, in manner' and form aforesaid, to do and commit, contrary to the form •of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Ohio.”
D. M. Wilson, for the motion.
C. JR. Truesdale, contra.

Opinion:
By the Court.
This is a good indictment against both •defendants. The offense of aiding, abetting, or procuring is a substantive and independent offense only in the sense that the offender may, under our statute, be tried and convicted without the trial or conviction of the principal offender. They are not distinct or separate offenses in the sense that both may not, as at common law, be charged in the same indictment, and in the same count thereof, and both offenders arraigned and tried thereon, as in cases where the defendants are jointly indicted for the same •crime or offense.
Motion overruled.