Case Name: State of Indiana v. Smith et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Indiana
Jurisdiction: Indiana
Decision Date: 1920-04-29
Citations: 189 Ind. 341
Docket Number: No. 23,690
Parties: State of Indiana v. Smith et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: Indiana Reports
Volume: 189
Pages: 341–342

Head Matter:
State of Indiana v. Smith et al.
[No. 23,690.
Filed April 29, 1920.]
jl. Criminal Law. — Argumentative Plea of Not Guilty. — Effect.— Where a pleading termed a plea in abatement was in effect an argumentative plea of not guilty, it was proper for the trial court to treat it as a plea of not guilty, p. 342.
2. Criminal Law. — Argumentative Plea, of Not Guilty. — Overruling demurrer. — Refusal of State to Introduce Evidence.- — Where a pleading termed a. plea in abatement was in effect an argumentative plea of not guilty, and the court overruled the state’s demurrer thereto, properly treating the plea as one of not guilty, there was no error in discharging the defendants on the state’s refusal to introduce evidence in support of the charge, p. 342.
From Switzerland Circuit Court; F. M. Griffith, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against William Smith and Forrest Smith. From a judgment discharging the defendants, the state appeals.
Affirmed.
Ele Stansbury, Attorney-General, and A. B. Cronk, for the state.

Opinion:
Townsend, C. J.
Appellees were jointly charged with grand larceny before a mayor's court. They were recognized to the circuit court. There they filed what they termed a plea in abatement, which was in reality an argumentative plea of not guilty.
The state moved to strike out this plea upon the ground that they had already entered a plea of not guilty. This motion was sustained. They asked and were granted leave to withdraw, and did withdraw, their plea of not guilty. They then refiled their so-called plea in abatement, to which the state filed a demurrer. The demurrer was overruled. To this ruling the state excepted, refused to offer any evidence to sustain the charge in the affidavit, and thereupon the court discharged the appellees.
Obviously the court treated this so-called plea in abatement, which was an argumentative plea of not guilty, as a plea of not guilty. The court was right in doing so, and would have been entirely right in entering a plea of not guilty for the appellees. The court was also right in discharging the appellees on the state's refusal to introduce evidence to support the charge in the affidavit.
Judgment of the trial court is affirmed.