IN CRIMINAL CASES

3 definitions found across Law Mind sources

IN CRIMINAL CASESAuthored
The Law Mind • 954 words
Definition
"In criminal cases" is a qualifying phrase rather than a standalone legal term. It functions as a contextual modifier that restricts the application of a procedural or evidentiary rule to criminal proceedings, as distinguished from civil, administrative, or equitable matters. When attached to a doctrine, rule, or principle, it signals that the following rule either applies exclusively within the criminal law context, operates differently there than in civil proceedings, or carries constitutional dimensions that civil matters do not implicate. The phrase appears most frequently in three contexts: 1. Joinder and indictment practice: Rules governing which offenses may be charged together, which defendants may be jointly indicted, and what procedural consequences flow from misjoinder operate distinctly in criminal cases. The rules are shaped by both common law tradition and constitutional protections unavailable to civil litigants. 2. Evidence: Entire categories of evidentiary doctrine — the confrontation right, privilege against self-incrimination, rules on prior bad acts, and certain hearsay exceptions — apply only or differently in criminal proceedings. The phrase "in criminal cases" demarcates where those rules engage. 3. Immunity and special status: Certain personal immunities (diplomatic immunity, legislative privilege, and others) may function differently, or be raised through different procedures, in criminal versus civil contexts. ---
Common Confusion
The phrase is sometimes used loosely to mean "in felony cases only," but this is incorrect. Unless further qualified by statute or court rule, "in criminal cases" encompasses all criminal proceedings — misdemeanors, felonies, and infraction-level matters cognizable in criminal courts. Researchers should also avoid conflating the criminal/civil distinction with the public/private distinction; not all public law proceedings are criminal cases, and some nominally civil proceedings (such as civil commitment or certain forfeiture actions) carry procedural protections analogous to those "in criminal cases." ---
Why It Matters in Research
This phrase is a research signal, not a substantive rule. When a historical source invokes it, the researcher's task is to identify which specific rule the phrase is qualifying — joinder, evidence, immunity, or something else — and then trace that underlying doctrine forward independently. In the Bouvier's era, joinder practice in criminal cases was governed primarily by common law and circuit-level decisions, with significant variation across jurisdictions. The citations in Bouvier's entries reflect a pre-codification world where courts in Alabama, Mississippi, Ohio, Massachusetts, and Texas were not applying a uniform standard. Researchers using 19th-century sources on joinder should not assume that rules cited for one state transferred to others, and should note that the modern Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (particularly Rules 8 and 14) substantially reorganized joinder doctrine for federal courts. For evidentiary questions, the phrase "in criminal cases" acquired constitutional weight that it did not uniformly carry in the 19th century. The incorporation of the Confrontation Clause, the Fifth Amendment privilege, and the Sixth Amendment jury trial right through 20th-century Supreme Court doctrine transformed what had been common-law or statutory rules into federal constitutional floors. Historical dictionary entries on evidentiary rules "in criminal cases" must be read against this backdrop — what was once a judge-made rule may now be a constitutional requirement. Joinder of defendants is a particularly active research trap. Bouvier's correctly notes that joint indictment is available only where the offense is one that can be jointly committed, and that principals and accessories may be joined. But modern practice on severance, antagonistic defenses, and prejudicial joinder has evolved considerably and varies between federal and state courts. Diplomatic and consular immunity in criminal cases is a distinct doctrinal pocket governed in large part by treaty (the Vienna Conventions) rather than common law, and historical dictionary sources have little to offer on this point. Researchers should move directly to treaty text and modern statutory implementation. ---
Historical Dictionary Support
Bouvier's Law Dictionary addresses the phrase primarily in the context of indictment and joinder practice. Its entries reflect the mid-to-late 19th-century common law landscape, where courts across multiple states were working out consistent principles through case-by-case adjudication. Bouvier's synthesizes the then-prevailing rule: offenses of the same general nature may be joined; joint defendants may be indicted together where the offense permits joint commission; principals and accessories may appear in one indictment. The supporting citations span roughly a dozen states and federal circuits, illustrating how unsettled this area remained before procedural codification. What Bouvier's does not address — because the doctrine had not yet fully developed — is the constitutional overlay. The due process implications of prejudicial joinder, the Sixth Amendment dimensions of defendant joinder, and the confrontation problems that can arise in joint trials were subjects for the 20th century. Researchers relying on Bouvier's for criminal joinder doctrine are getting the common law baseline, not the constitutional superstructure. No other source dictionary was available for this entry. ---
Jurisdictional Note
The federal/state divide is significant. Federal criminal procedure is largely codified in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, while state courts operate under their own codes with substantial variation in joinder rules, severance standards, and evidentiary carve-outs specific to criminal cases. When a historical rule is described as applying "in criminal cases" without jurisdictional qualification, treat it as potentially limited to the jurisdiction of the cited authority. ---
Encyclopedia Cross-Reference
The Law Mind Criminal Law Encyclopedia: — Rules of Evidence in Criminal Cases (Overview) [criminal_207] — Hearsay Exceptions in Criminal Cases [criminal_208] — Diplomatic and Consular Immunity in Criminal Cases [criminal_259] ---
Related Terms
Indictment; Joinder of Offenses; Joinder of Defendants; Severance; Accessory; Principal; Rules of Evidence; Confrontation Clause; Privilege Against Self-Incrimination; Diplomatic Immunity; Civil Cases (contrast); Due Process
IN CRIMINAL CASESmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
Different offences of the same general nature may be joined in the same indictment; 1 Chitty, Cr. Law 253, 255; 29 Ala. N. 8. 62; 28 Miss. 267; 4 Ohio St. 440; 6 McLean 596; 4 Denio 183; 18 Me. 108; 1 Cheves 103; 4 Ark. 56; 158 Mass. 164; 25 Neb. 581; see 14 Gratt. 687; 80 Tex. App. 628; and it is no cause of arrest of judgment that they have been so joined; 29 E. L. & Eq. 536; 29 N. H. 184; 11 Ga. 225; 3 W. & M. 164; see 1 Strobh. 455; but not in the same count; 5 R. I. 385; 24 Mo. 353; 1 Rich. 260; 4 Humphr. 25; see 9 Lawy. Rep. Ann. 182, note; and an indictment may be quashed, in the discretion of the court, where the counts are joined in such man- ner as will confound the evidence; 17 Mo. 544; 19 Ark. 568, 577; 20 Miss. 468. No court, it is said, will, however, permit a prisoner to be tried upon one indictment for two distinct and separate crimes; Steph. Cr. Proc. 154; 29 Ν. Η. 184. See 5 S. & R. 59; 10 Cush. 580. Where, out of precaution to meet every aspect of a single offence, an indictment charges distinct crimes, and no attempt is made to convict accused of disconnected offences, the state will not be compelled to elect on which he shall be tried; 91 Ala. 87. Three separate offences, but not more, against the provisions of U. S. Rev. Stat. § 5480, prohibiting the use of the mails with intent to defraud, when committed within the same six calendar months, may be joined, and when so joined there is to be a single sentence for all, but this does not prevent other indictments for other offences under the same statute committed within the same six calendar months; 128 U. S. 672. In Demurrer. The answer made to a demurrer. Co. Litt. 71 b. The act of making such answer is merely a matter of form, but must be made within a reason- able time; 10 Rich. 49. Of Issue. The act by which the parties to a cause arrive at that stage of it in their pleadings, that one asserts a fact to be so, and the other denies it. For example, when one party denies the fact pleaded by his antagonist, who has tendered the issue thus, "And this he prays may be inquired of by the country," or, "and of this he puts himself upon the country," the party denying the fact may immediately subjoin, "And the said A B does the like;" when the issue is said to be joined. Of Parties. IN CIVIL CASES. IN EQUITY. All parties materially interested in the subject of a suit in equity should be made parties, however numerous; Mitf. Eq. Plead. 144; 2 Eq. Cas. Abr. 179; 1 Pet. 299; 18 id. 359; 7 Cra. 72; 2 Mas. 181; 5 McLean 444; 2 Paine 536; 1 Johns. Ch. 349; 2 Bibb 184; 24 Me. 20; 7 Conn. 342; 11 Gill & J. 426; 4 Rand. 451; 7 Ired. Eq. No. C. 261; 2 Stew. Ala. 280: either as plaintiffs or defendants, so that there may be a complete decree which shall bind them all; 133 U. S. 233, 579. But, where the parties are very numerous, and sue in the same right, a portion may in some cases appear for all in the same situation; Beach, Eq. Pr. § 63; 16 Ves. 321; 16 How. 288; 11 Conn. 112; 8 Paige, Ch. 222; 19 Barb. 517. See 152 Mass. 123. Mere possible or contingent interest does not render its possessor a necessary party; 6 Wheat. 550; 8 Conn. 354; 5 Cow. 719. And see 3 Bibb 86; 6 J. J. Marsh. 425. Contingent remaindermen are not neces- sary parties to a suit to set aside the deed creating the remainder; 148 Ill. 290; nor a residuary legatee to a bill filed by a legatee or creditor to assert a claim against the estate of a testator; 17 N. J. Eq. 156. There need be no connection but commu- nity of interest; 2 Ala. N. S. 209. It is not indispensable that all the parties to a suit should have an interest in all the matters contained in the suit, but it will be suf- ficient if each party has an interest in same material matters in the suit, and they are connected with the others; 128 U. S. 403. A court of equity, even after final hear- ing on the merits and on appeal to the court of last resort, will compel the joinder of necessary parties; 89 Mo. 284.
IN CRIMINAL CASESmain
Bouvier's Law Dictionary • 1928
Two or more per- sons who have committed a crime may be jointly indicted therefor; 7 Gratt. 619;6 McLean 596; 10 Ired. 153; 8 Blackf. 205; only where the offence is such that it may be committed by two jointly; 3 Sneed 107; and not where there are distinct and differ- ent offences; 97 N. C. 474. A principal and accessory may be joined in one indictment; 155 Mass. 224 65 N. Η. 284. They may have a separate trial, however, in the discretion of the court; 15 Ill. 586; 1 Park. Cr. Ca. 424; 7 Gratt. 619; 10 Cush. 530; 5 Strobh. 85; 9 Ala. N. S. 187; and in some states as a matter of right; 1 Park. Cr. Ca. 371. See Dicey, Parties; Steph. Pl.; PARTIES. As to the effect of Misjoinder and Non- joinder, and how and when advantage should be taken of either, see those titles.

Explore the full Law Mind legal research platform.

SubscribeEncyclopediaSign In