People v. O'Donell

The question involved in this action arises upon a demurrer to an indictment against the defendant for selling strong and spirituous liquors in quantities less than five gallons at a time, to be drank on his premises, without having license therefor. The demurrer was on the ground that more than one crime was charged in the indictment. The indictment alleged sales by the defendant on March 1, 1885, at the town of McDonough, Chenango county, N. Y., to several persons named; also, sales at the same place August 26, 1885, to certain other persons named, and sales made on the 12th day of September, und on the 28th day of July, 1885, at the same place, to still other persons named in the indictment.

Before the enactment of the Code of Criminal Procedure, an indictment was not bad because of the joinder of separate and distinct misdemeanors, although by different penalties, and a general judgment upon it was good where the sentence was single and and appropriate to either of the counts upon which a conviction was had. People v. Dunn, 90 N. Y. 107 . But the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that the indictment must charge but one crime and in one form, except the crime may be charged in separate counts to have been committed in a different manner or by different means, and if the acts complained of may constitute different crimes, such crime may be charged in separate counts. Code Crim. Pro. §§ 278, 279. Even since the adoption of the Code, when the act complained of may constitute different offenses, such offenses may be charged in separate counts of the indictment. People v. Infield, 1 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 146 ; People v. Kelly, 3 Id., 272 . So an indictment containing varyipg allegations in different counts as to the manner and means of the commission of the crime, but which shows, upon its face, that those counts relate to but one and the same transaction, is good. People v. Cole, 2

In the case at bar, the indictment charged the illegal sale of spirituous liquors on at least four different occasions, and upon each occasion to entirely different persons. Each of these charges is made as an independent charge or count in the indictment. The indictment not only does not show upon its face that these separate counts related to the same transaction, but does show quite conclusively that each was a separate and distinct transaction. This indictment was, we think, obnoxious to the objection that it charged more than one crime. This view is sustained by the case of the People v. Upton, 4 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 455 . In that case the indictment, in separate counts, charged the defendant, an officer of a bank, with the offenses of overdrawing his account in different amounts and upon different dates. It was there held that the indictment was subject to the objection that it charged more than one offense, and was in violation of the prohibition of section 278, and for that reason was demurrable. It is true, it was held in that case, that the defendant had waived the misjoinder by his appearance and plea of not guilty. In this case the plea of not guilty was withdrawn, and the objection was raised by demurrer, as provided by section 323, subdivision 3, Code of Criminal Procedure. The indictment in that case was for a misdemeanor. Penal Code, § 600. The crimes charged in the indictment in this case are also misdemeanors. We are of the opinion that the indictment in this case charged more than one crime, that it was demurrable on that ground, and that the court erred in overruling such demurrer.

The people, however, contend that no judgment has been entered in this action, and therefore that an appeal will not lie, and cite the case of People v. Beman, 22 Hun, 283 , to sustain that contention. The appeal-book in this case shows that the defendant was permitted to withdraw

For the error above pointed out the judgment and conviction should be reversed and the prisoner discharged.

Habdin, J., concurs.

I cannot concur in holding that this indictment is demurrable because it charges that defendant made divers sales to divers persons on different occasions, in violation of section 14 of chapter 628 of the Laws of 1857. In that respect the indictment charges but one misdemeanor, to wit, the selling of liquor to be drank on defendant’s premises without a license. People v. Adams, 19 Wend. 475 ; Osgood ro. People, 39 N. Y. 449 . Under such an indictment, if it be established that defendant violated section 14 by selling to divers persons on different occasions but a single punishment can be imposed. People ex rel. Tweed v. Liscomb, 60 N. Y. 549 . But for another reason the demurrer must be sustained. It is a misdemeanor to sell strong spirituous liquors or wines, in quantities less than five gallons at a time, without having a license therefor. Laws of 1857, § 13, chap. 628; Foote v. People, 59 N. Y., 321 . It is also a misdemeanor to sell strong or spiritous liquors to be drank in the vendor’s house

The indictment contains five counts. The fourth count charges that, July 28, 1885, the defendant violated the thirteenth section of chapter 628 of the Laws of 1857. by selling to divers persons spirituous liquors by the small measure. The other counts charge that, March 1, 1885, July 28, 1885, August 26, 1885, and September 12, 1885, the defendant violated the fourteenth section of said chapter by selling to divers persons on each day, spirituous liquors to be drank on his premises.

Section 278 and 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provide, that (§ 278): “ The indictment must charge but one crime and in one form, except as in the next section provided.” (Section 279.) 66 The crime may be charged in separate counts to have been committed in a different manner or by different means; and where the acts complained of may constitute different crimes, such crimes may be charged in separate counts.” These sections are not limited in their application to indictments for felonies; and the rule existing before the Code, that several misdemeanors might be joined in the same indictment, when the same judgment was appropriate for all, was abrogated by the section above quoted. People v. Upton, 38 Hun, 107 ; 4 N. Y. Crim. Rep. 455 . The demurrer must be sustained, because the indictment charges a violation of the thirteenth section, and violations of the fourteenth section, which are clearly distinct misdemeanors.

The judgment of the Court of Sessions should be reversed, and the demurrer allowed. More than two years having elapsed since the commission of the alleged misdemeanors, the defendant cannot be reindicted (Code of

Judgment reversed and prisoner discharged.