Case Name: The State v. Eli Steele
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1871-03-01
Citations: 3 Heisk. 135
Docket Number: 
Parties: The State v. Eli Steele.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 50
Pages: 135–137

Head Matter:
The State v. Eli Steele.
1. Pbactice. Reasons in arrest of judgment. The proper practice, where a party seeks to arrest a judgment, is to file reasons in arrest, pointing out specially the alleged defects in the proceedings.
2. PROFANITY AND Blasphemy. When public, indictable. Profane and blasphemous language, in a public place, in the presence and hearing of divers citizens, is indictable.
S. Indictment ob Pbesentment. What must be set out. It is not necessary, in an indictment for this offense, to set out the whole conversation in which the offensive words occurred.
4. Eeeoneous Judgment. Misdemeanor. If the court below pronounce an erroneous judgment, this court will enter the proper judgment; as where the court below improperly arrest the judgment on a conviction for misdemeanor, this court will pronounce sentence.
Cases cited: State v. Graham, 3 Sneed, 134,140.
Code cited: 5249.
FROM ERANKLIN.
Circuit Court, July Term, 1867, before N. A. Patterson, J.
Attorney General Heiskell, for the State,
on the necessity of filing reasons in arrest, cited 1 Arch., 672, n., citing State v. Wing, 32 Me., 581; 2 Tidd’s Pr., 917, top. No change by Code, 5242. On the main point, cited Graham y. State, 3 Sneed, 134.
See Wilcox v State, ante, 110.

Opinion:
Nelson, J.,
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Tlie record does not disclose for wbat reason the judgment in this case was arrested. The motion in arrest is general, and specifies nothing. It is certainly the better, if not the only correct practice, in civil as ivell as criminal cases, formally to assign reasons in arrest of judgment upon the record, in support of the motion in arrest, so that the attention of the Court, in the first instance, may be at once directed to the alleged defect in the proceedings, and that the public, through all time, may, upon examination of the record, be informed as to the grounds of its action: See 2 Tidd's Pr., 3 Am. ed., 918, m.; 3 Black. Com., 393, m.; Appendix, Ib., xi; State v. Wing, 32 Me., 581; 1 Waterman's Archb. Cr. Pr., 671, 672.
The propriety, not to say necessity, of this practice, is more apparent when the cause is to be considered by a revising tribunal, whose attention should be directed at once to the reasons in arrest, assigned of record, instead of being compelled to make a critical, and often fruitless, examination of the record to find out the supposed defects.
The presentment charges that the defendant, in a public place, and in the presence and hearing of divers good citizens of the State, unlawfully uttered, published, and spoke the gross, scandalous, profane and blasphemous language therein stated, to the great scandal and common nuisance of all good citizens, &c. It was not necessary to set out the whole conversation in the presentment, but only so much of it as clearly describes the language used, and the useless et esteras in the presentment may be rejected as surplusage. The offense was held to be indictable, in an able and exhaustive opinion by Judge Caruthers, in The State v. Graham, 3 Sneed, 134, 140, and no other citation of authorities is necessary.
Reverse the judgment, let the defendant be fined five dollars, with costs, and remand the cause under the Code, 5249.