Case Name: Blevins vs. The State
Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Tennessee
Decision Date: 1838-06-08
Citations: 1 Meigs 82
Docket Number: 
Parties: Blevins vs. The State.
Judges: 
Reporter: Tennessee Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 82–83

Head Matter:
Blevins vs. The State.
Indictment. EnU'y of juror's return — ambiguity. If an indictment be preferred against two., for a certain offence, and the record shows, that the grand jury came into open court, in a body, and returned a bill of indictment against one of them, for the same offence, upon which he is afterwards arraigned, tried and convicted, the judgment will not be arrested on account of this ambiguity in the record, — for the fact that the indictment was preferred against two does not make it the les3 an indictment against one of the two.
SAME. Same. The principle settled in Chappel vs. The State, 8 Yerger, 166, —that no less evidence than record evidence can be received to establish the fact, that the accused has been indicted in due form by the grand jury — approved, but stated to be upon the very verge of the law.
A bill of indictment was preferred by Beabson, attorney general for the first solicitorial district, to the grand jury of Johnson, against John L. Blevins and Armistead Blevins, for an assault and battery upon the body of William C. Blevins. It was indorsed as follows — “Indictment, State vs. John L. Blevins, Jlrmistead Blevins, Assault and battery, William C Blevins, prosecutor; witnesses, William C. Blevins, Jesse Cole sworn and sent to the grand jury, this 29th day November, 1837. A- D. Smith, Clerk.” “A true bill, G. Moore, foreman G. J.”
The finding of the bill by the grand jury was entered upon the record in the following manner:—
“State v. Jno. L. Blevins. Indictment for assault and battery, William C. Blevins, prosecutor. In this cause the grand jury in a body came into court, and returned a bill of indictment against John L. Blevins for an assault and battery, indorsed by the foreman thereof, a true bill.”
After a plea to the jurisdiction of the court, pleaded in proper person, and signed and sworn to by both, had been overruled on demurrer, the defendants both pleaded not guilty, and were convicted. They thereupon moved in arrest of judgment, that the record did not show the finding of any bill of indictment against them by the grand jury. His Honor, Judge Powell, of the first circuit, before whom the cause was tried at March term of Johnson circuit court, 1837, discharged the motion in arrest of judgment as to John L. Blevins, and pronounced judgment upon him. He thereupon appealed in error; and the question was — whether the bill of indictment, the finding of which as to one is mentioned in the record, could be taken by intendment for the same which was preferred against two?
June 8th.
Note. — Chappell vs. The State decides that the indictment and endorsement of the grand jury do not become part of the record, by being returned into court, received and filed, unless the fact of the return, receiving and filing be noticed of record, 8 Yer. 170, 171.—Quere.

Opinion:
Green, J.
delivered the opinion of the court.
In this case, ari indictment was preferred against John L. Blevins and Armisfead Blevins, for an assault and battery. The record shows that the grand jury came into open court in a body, and returned a bill of indictment against John L. Blevins, for,an assault and battery, a true bill. It is insisted that from this entry it does not appear, that the indictment against John L. and Armistead Blevins, upon which the said John L. was afterwards tried, was the one which was before the grand jury, and which was found a true bill; and that upon the authority of the case of Chappel vs. The State, 8 Yer. 166, the judgment ought to have been arrested. We think this entry of record sufficiently describes the indictment upon which the defendant was tried, to make it certain to a reasonable intent that it was the one, which had been found a true bill by the grand jury. It was strictly an indictment against John L. Blevins, and the fact that another was charged in the same indictment, does not make it the less an indictment against the defendant. Although we adhere to the principle settled in the case of Chappell vs. The State, yet we concur with the attorney general that it goes to the very verge of the law.
Affirm the judgment.