Case Name: The Commonwealth v. Laurence Linton
Court: General Court of Virginia
Jurisdiction: Virginia
Decision Date: 1820-06
Citations: 2 Va. Cas. 205
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Commonwealth v. Laurence Linton.
Judges: 
Reporter: Virginia Reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
The Commonwealth v. Laurence Linton.
Criminal Law — Examination.—If a man be examined by the Examining Court for feloniously stabbing another, and remanded for trial for that offence, and the party stabbed afterwards die, the accused cannot be indicted for the murder, without an examination, before the Justices, of the murder.
Same — Death In One State from Wound Given in Another. — if a person be stabbed in this State and die of his wounds, in another, he cannot be tried for the murder in any county in this Commonwealth, but he may be examined, indicted and tried for the felonious stabbing, in the county where the blow was inflicted.
The prisoner was indicted at the Superior Court of Law for the county of Ohio, of the murder of Joseph M’Caughy : the Indictment charged that the mortal stroke was given at Ohio county, in this State, and that the said M’Caughy died of his wounds in Jefferson county, State of Ohio. The prisoner being led to the bar, moved the Court to quash the Indictment: 1. Because no previous enquiry has been had before an Examining Court, into the facts with which he is now charged, or of the offence for which he now stands indicted ; but that so far as he was tried or examined before the Justices of the said county of Ohio, summoned and convened for that purpose, *it was for an offence of a different character, and growing out of a part of the facts in the said Indictment alleged. 2. Because the said Indictment charges a mortal wound, given at the said county of Ohio, and that the death of the said Joseph was occasioned thereby, in the county of Jefferson, in the State of Ohio, which facts, if true, do not constitute a felonious homicide within the Commonwealth of Virginia, or punishable by its Laws. 3. Be cause the said Defendant was remanded by the Examining' Court, to be tried for felo-niously inflicting on a certain Joseph M’Caughy, sundry wounds, with a plane bit, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill him the said Joseph, and cannot, under that examination, and decision of the Examining Court, be now indicted and tried for the offence charged against him in the said Indictment. The record of the Examining Court being produced, supported the allegations of the prisoner. Whereupon the Court adjourned to this Court the following questions : “1. Whether the prisoner, on being charged before the Examining Court with inflicting sundry wounds on the said Joseph, with intent to maim, disable, disfigure, or kill him, the said Joseph, and remanded for trial before this Court, for the said offence, can be indicted and tried for the murder of the said Joseph, on his afterwards dying of the said wounds, so inflicted, without a further examination before the County Court? 2. Can the prisoner be tried and convicted of the murder of which he stands charged under the Indictment, alleging the mortal stroke to be given in the county of Ohio, in the State of Virginia, and the death of the person stricken at the county of Jefferson, in the State of Ohio, a place not within the territorial limits or jurisdiction of the said Commonwealth ? 3. If the facts charged in the said Indictment do not constitute a felonious homicide, within this State, and punishable by its Daws, does the subsequent death of the person stricken, at the place in the Indictment mentioned, form any bar to the Indictment, trial, and conviction of the prisoner for the offence of feloniously inflicting on the said Joseph sundry wounds, with intent to maim, disfigure, disable, or kill him the said Joseph, under the decision of the Examining Court remanding the prisoner for further trial before the Superior Court of Eaw, for that offence ?”
Robertson, Attorney General. 1. Admitted, that as the Examining Court merely examined the prisoner on the *charge of felonious stabbing, and not for the felonious homicide, he could not now be tried for murder : the whole fact was not examined into : whether the death ensued from the blow, had not been examined into by that Tribunal, and it was a question vitally important, on which the prisoner had a right to the opinion of the Examining Court.
2. As to the second question, the Common Eaw was, that where a man was stricken in England, and died in a foreign country ; or where the blow was given in one county, and died in another county ; in the former case, he could not be tried in England for the murder ; nor in the latter, could he be tried for it in either county; and Statutes were passed to provide for each case. 1 Hawk. ch. 31, § 12 & 13; 2 Hawk. ch. 25, § 36 ; 1 Chitty’s C., E. 178-9.
3 He contended that the death ensuing in another State, from the blow given in this, affords no bar to a Prosecution for the felonious stabbing here.
Criminal Law — Death in One State from Wound Given in Another.—In Ex parte McNeely, 36 W. Va. 84, 14 S. E. Rep. 437, it Is said: “The Case of Linton, 2 Va. Cas. 205, is said in Hunter v. State, 40 N. J. Law, 514, to be the only case bolding that where a blow is given in one state, followed by death in another, there can be no prosecution in the state of the blow, No reasons are given by the court. I do not see how that decision was reached, except on the untenable ground of the alleged rule of the old common law that, where the blow is in one county, death in another, neither can try the case; by parity of reasoning, where blow is in one state, death in another, the state of the blow cannot prosecute.”

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
" The Court is unanimously of opinion, that the prisoner being charged before the Examining Court with inflicting sundry wounds on Joseph M'Caughy, with intent to maim, disable, disfigure or kill, and remanded for trial before the Superior Court of Eaw for Ohio county for that offence, he cannot be indicted and tried for murder, although the said Joseph died of said wounds, without a further examination before the County Court; nor can the prisoner be tried and convicted of the murder charged in the Indictment, alleging the mortal stroke to be given in the county of Ohio in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the death of the person stricken, at the County of Jefferson in the State of Ohio, a place not within the territorial limits of said Commonwealth.
The Court is further unanimously of opinion, that the subsequent death of the person stricken, at the place in the Indictment mentioned, forms no bar to the indictment, trial and conviction of the prisoner, for the offence of feloniously stabbing, shooting, or disa-blihg with intent to maim, disfigure, disable and kill that person, under the decision of the Examining Court remanding the prisoner for further trial before the Superior Court of Eaw for that offence."