Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Porter 2 Park. Crim. Rep. 14

← Cases

People v. Porter

2 Park. Crim. Rep. 14 Court Washington Oyer and Terminer, Decision date 1823-07-17 English

Delivered by Walworth, Circuit Judge.

Contents

Majority

p. 14
Washington Oyer and Terminer,
July 17, 1823.
Before Walworth, Circuit Judge, and the County Judges.
The People vs. William Porter.

Headnote

A prisoner can not be convicted on an indictment for blasphemy, on his mere confession made out of court, that hé had ináde usé of the Words charged in the indictment; the prosecutor must also show that an offence had been committed, or that blasphemous words had actually been uttered. Intoxication is no excuse on an indictment for blasphemy.
The prisoner was indicted for blasphemy, in speaking the following words: “ God Almighty is a whoremáster, the Virgin Mary a damned whore, and Jesus Christ' a bastardé
The public prosecutor to establish the speaking of the words, called Alfred White, and offered to prove by him, that in a conversation with the prisoner, he admitted to the witness that at a whortleberrying party he had made use of the expressions charged in the indictment".

This is not legal evidence to prove the offence. A person can never be convicted óf a crime

p. 15
on his own confession, made out of court, without first proving a crime committed, or giving some testimony in addition to the confession, from which the court and jury can legally infer that the offence has been committed by some one. In this case, if any person heard the words spoken, his testimony should be adduced. If they were not heard by any person, no criflae could have been committed, and the prisoner might as well be convicted if he had merely confessed he once thought so.

Z. R. Shepherd and J. Willard, for the prisoner,

then offered to prove that the prisoner was so beastly drunk that he did not know what he said.

But even if this were legal evidence to prove a crime committed, the confession does not go far enough, as the prisoner did not admit that the words were spoken within the time of limitation, or even that they were spoken within this county or state.

A witness afterwards swore positively to the speaking of the same words at Root’s tavern in Hebron, as laid in the indictment, a few minutes after the confession above mentioned had been made.

Walworth, Circuit Judge.—That is no excuse, and only aggravates the offence.

This witness, however, was discredited, and the jury gave a verdict of acquittal.