STATE V. CHAPIN. VOL. J *THE STATE [*501 V. CHAPIN. The circuit courts of this State have jurisdiction of offenses if committed within the county, and of the persons of those committing them, when brought into court, whether voluntarily or by legal coercion. It is not necessary, in all cases, that a man should be actually present in this State to make him amenable to our laws for a crime committed here, if the crime is the immediate result of his act. An accessory before the fact, in another State, to a felony committed here—as where an agreement or conspiracy is entered into in a -nther State to commit the felony in this—is guilty of a crime In the State where he becomes an accessory, and
JAN. TERM, 1856. STATE V. CHAPIN. answerable there ; while the principals, who com-Ohio, dm., at the time, and as stated in mit the felony, are indictable here. said plea, and although at the time of, Error to Phillips Circuit Court. and during the commission of the offense alleged and charged in said in-ON. CHARLES W. ADAMS, Cir-dictment, was personally present in the H cuit Judge. State of Ohio, and had been before that Jordan, Attorney-General, for the time, and afterwards in said State, and State. not in the county of Phillips, and State Fowler & Stillwell, of Arkansas, in person, as he hath above for defendant. thereof alleged, but the said plaintiff in ENGLISH, C. J. This was an indict-fact says that the said Adams Chapin ment for arson, determined in the Phil-did while in the said State of Ohio,con-lips circuit court. spire to, and with divers other persons, Adams Chapin, with John N. Cum-amongst whom was one John N. Cum-mings, William H. Holland and others, mings and William H. Holland, to pro-was charged with the burning of the cure, and did then and there advise and steamboat Martha nashington on the counsel the burning of the said steam-Mississippi river, in the county of Phil-boat, Martha Washington, in the said lips, on the 14th January, 1852. In county of Phillips, as charged in said some of the counts in the indictment, indictment ; and the plaintiff avers Chapin was charged as principal, and that, in pursuance of said conspiracy, in others, as accessory belore the fact. aid, counsel, advice and encourage-He filed the following plea to the in-ment so given by the said Adams dictment : Chapin, to and with divers other per-"And the said Adams Chapin, &c., sons, and amongst whom were the said &c., &c., saith that the court here ought John N. Cummings and William H. not to take cognizance of the arson and Holland, the said John N. Cummings 5621 felony in the ''said indictment and the said William H. Holland, did, above specified, because, protesting that on the 14th day of January, 1S52, in the he is not guilty of the same ; neverthe-county of Phillips, in the State of Ar-less, the said Adams Chapin saith that kansas, burn said steamboat Martha at the said several times when the said Washington, and the said defendant supposed offenses set forth in the sev-therefore was, while in the said eral counts of the said indictment were State of Ohio, accessory before as therein alleged committed, he was the fact, to the burning of not, nor was he at any time prior there-said steamboat, in the county to, in the said State of Arkansas, or in *of Phillips, in the State of Ar- r503 the said county of Phillips, but was kansas aforesaid, and did advise and then, and for a long time before and counsel, and encourage the same in after said thne, a citizen of the State of manner and form as charged in said Ohio, one of the sovereign States of the indictment, and was in construction United States of America, where he was and contemplation of law, present at actually present at the said time, &c., the commission of said offense, to-wit : aud this he is ready to verify ; whereat the county of -Phillips aforesaid fore he prays judgment," &c. and the said State of Arkansas further To this plea the State replied as fol-says, that the said Adams Chapin, aft-lows er the commission of said offense as Precludi non, &c., "because she says, charged in said bill of indictment, came that, although the said Adams Chapin within, and now is within the said is, and was a citjzen of the State of county of Phillips, and within the jur-
STATE V. CHAPIN. VOL. 17 isdiction of this court ; without this, and forcible as pertains to this State in that said defendant is not guilty as consequence of a recognizance entered charged in said bill of indictment, in into by him in this court at the last construction and contemplation of lawi term thereof, for his appearance at this and was not in the said county of Phil-term, as appears by said record now re-lips, and State of Arkansas, at the maining in this court : and this, the commission of said offense as he hath said defendant is ready to verify, above thereof alleged ; and this, the wherefore," &c. said State of Arkansas is ready to veri-The State demurred to the rejoinder, fy, wherefore she prays judgment," &c. in short by consent, the court over-To this replication the defendant re-ruled the demurrer, and the State rest-joined as follows : ing, final judgment was rendered dis-"That the court here ought not to charging the defendant. take cognizance of the arson and felony The State brought error. aforesaid, by reason of anything con-The only matter set up in the rejoin-tained in the replication of the said der in avoidance of the matter of the State of Arkansas to the plea of said replication is, that the defendant did defendant, &c., because, protesting as not come into this State voluntarily, heretofore, that he is not guilty of the but was brought here upon a requisi-same, or the said supposed conspiracy tion of the Governor, forcibly and charged in said replication, or the felo-against his will. This, though respon-nious burning of the said steamboat, sive to one allegation of the replication, Martha 'Washington, by the said John is no answer to what we deem its sub-N. Cummings and William H. Hol-stantial and essential matter. If the land, as charged in and by said repli-defendant committed an offense against cation, at the time and place aforesaid; our laws in Phillips county, the circuit nevertheless the said Adams Chapin court of that county had jurisdiction saith, although he, the said defendant, of the offense, and when he was did come into the said State of Arkan-brought into court it had jurisdiction sas, after the commission of the said of his person, whether his appearance supposed conspiracy, and the arson of was voluntary or by legal coercion, and the said steamboat, by the said John without regard to his citizenship. N. Cummings and William H. Hol-Adams v. The People, 1 Comstock Rep. land, as aforesaid, and is now present 179; The People v. McLeod, 25 Wend. within said State of Arkansas, yet he, 573, 574; Smith ex parte, 3 McLean's in fact, saith that he did not so come Rep. 134, 135. into the State voluntarily and of his When a citizen in another State com-own accord, but that long after said mits a high crime in this, if the juris-supposed offenses, he the said defend-diction of our courts over his person ant, was forcibly brought within the depended upon his voluntary appear-limits thereof, by and under the power ance before the tribunal, or within our and authority of a warrant issued by territorial limits, the criminal, iu most the Governor of the State of Ohio, instances, would, doubtless, go unpun-based and predicaW upon a requisition ished. 564*] made *upon him by the Gover-But the demurrer reaches back to nor of the State of Arkansas, under the replication, and we must determine the law in such cases made and pro-whether it i g sufficient answer to the vided, and that he is now here and plea or uot. within said State of Arkansas, not vol-The plea is, that at the time untarily, but under said original arrest, the arson was committed, the de-
JAN. TERM, 1856. STATE V. CHAPIN. fendant was a citizen of, and yond our boundary line, in Texas, present in the State of Ohio, and were, by firing a gun, or propelling 5651 "was not in Phillips county, any other implement of death, to kill a Arkansas, where the crime was perpe-person in Arkansas, he would he guilty trated. of murder here, and answerable to our The replication confessing this, at-laws, because the crime is regarded as tempts to avoid it by alleging that the being committed where the shot. or defendant was an accessory before the other implement *propelled, [*56G fact, in Ohio, to a felony committed by takes effect. 1 Chit. Cthn. Law, 191; his co-conspirators, and the principals United States v. Davis, 2 Sumner 482; in the crime in Arkansas. People v. Adams, 3 Denio Rep. 207; By our bill of rights (sec. 11), the People v. Rathburn, 21 Wend. Rep. 500. accused is entitled to a "trial by an Again, if a person absent from this impartial jury of the county or district State, commits a crime here, through in which the crime shall have been or by means of an innocent instru-committed." And by the constitution of the United ment or agent, it seems that the law States (Amend. Art. 6): "In all crim-would regard him personally present, inal prosecutions, the accused shall en-and hold him responsible for the of . - joy the right to a speedy and public fense. As, for example, if the defend-trial, by an impartial jury of the State ant had fired the Martha Washington Fos-and district, wherein the crime shall through the agency of an idiot. have been committed; which district ter's Crown Law, 349; I Chit. Crim. shall have been previously ascertained Law 191; Wheat. Crim. Law 115; Or by law." where one utters forged notes through The laws of Arkansas have no extra-an innocent agent. People v. Rath-territorial operation. Each State pos-burn, 21 Wend. Rep. 500. Or obtains sesses the exclusive power to provide Money by false pretenses, through such for the punishment of crimes commit-agency. People v. Adams, 3 Denio 190. ted within its limits, except so far as Or sends poison to another through a this power may have been surrendered letter, intending to poison him, and to the government of the United States succeeds. Queen v. Garrett, 22 Bag. by the Federal constitution. Law and Eq. Rep.; People v. Rath-In this ease, the Martha Washington burn, ubi sup. 540 was burnt in Arkansas; our laws were Again, it seems that in misdemean-violated, and our courts have jurisdic-ors, where there are no accessories, but tion to try and punish all persons who all are regarded as principals who, were actually or constructively pres-in any manner, participate in the com-ent, participating in the crime. mission of the crime, if a person in One It is not necessary in all cases, that a State procure the commission of a man should he actually present ti this crime of that grade in another State, State to make him amenahle to our through even a guilty agent, the pro-laws for a crime committed here. If curer is regarded as a principal in the the etime is the immediate result of offense, and as being present, in con-his act, he may be made to answer for templation of law, where it is commit-it in our courts, though actually ab-ted, and answerable there for the crime. sent from the State at the tiMe he does Commonwealth v. Gillespie et at., 7 Serg . the act, because he is constructively & Rawle 478; People v. Adams, nbi sup.; present, or present in contemplation of Barkharnsted v. Parsons, 3 Conn. Rep. law. 1; The King e. Johnson, 6 East Rep. For example, if a man standing be-583.
VoL. 17 But the offense under consideration was a felony, and Cummings and others, who burnt the boat in Arkan-sas, in pursuance of a conspiracy entered into with the defendant, Chapin, in Ohio, were, according to the allegations of the replication, guilty agents, and the principals in the crime, while Chapin was an accessory before the fact in Ohio. Such being the case made by the replication, Chapin was guilty of a crime in Ohio, and answerable there, while Cummings and others, the principals in the arson, were indictable in Arkansas. 56741 *We have been able to find no authority to sustain the jurisdiction of the Phillips circuit court as to defendant, Chapin, upon the allegations of the replication. 1 Chit. Grim. Law 191; Ex parte Jo Sny th, the Mormon Prophet, 3 McLean' s Rep. 121; State v. %night, Taylor and Conference, Law and Equity, by Battle, N. C. Rep. 44; People v. Adams, ubi sup.; People v. Rathburn,ubi sup.; Digest, Ark., chap. 52, sec. 110. The judgment of the court below is affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.