Court Opinion

ID: 9563915
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:50:07.171818+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:08.260281
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Pringle
dissenting:
The statute in effect at the time of the appeal involved required, among other things, that the notice of appeal, a requisite to jurisdiction of the appellate court, contain an “identification of the offense or crime of which the appellant was convicted.” I have searched the notice of appeal for even one word which by any exercise of semantics describes or identifies the crime or offense of which the plaintiff in error was convicted. None appears there.
It is true that the statute should be liberally construed as the majority opinion points out, 51 C.J.S. Justices of the Peace §154b, but liberal construction does not permit the court to neatly excise from the statute the phrase “identification of the offense or crime *180of which the appellant was convicted.” This the majority-opinion does by calling the objection to the notice highly technical. I cannot subscribe to such judicial surgery.
Further, I am persuaded that when a defendant in a criminal action voluntarily fully satisfies a judgment against him by paying the fine assessed, the judgment is extinguished, there is nothing left to review and the entire matter is moot. Such is the holding in the majority of states. 5 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure §2248.
For the reasons above stated, I respectfully dissent.