Citation: KING v. LUKENS, 1 U.S. 5 (1762)
Facts of the Case:
The case involved an indictment for a nuisance brought against John Luken. The issue arose from a statute enacted in 1705, which required that any indictment be endorsed by the prosecutor
Issues of the Case:
The main issue was whether the indictment could proceed without the endorsement of a prosecutor, as the grand jury had initiated the indictment without any active prosecutor
Plaintiff:
The King: Representing the public interest in prosecuting the nuisance.
Defendant:
John Lukens: The individual indicted for creating a nuisance.
Court which Decided the Case:
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania: The case was decided during the April Term of 1762
Judgement:
The court ruled that the indictment could proceed without the endorsement of a prosecutor, as long as there was no active prosecutor involved The judgement stated: “It often happens that all the Witnesses necessary to support a public Prosecution are brought unwillingly to give Evidence; and the Act could never intend there should be a Prosecutor indorsed, unless there was really a Prosecutor existing for the Words in the Act are, the Prosecutor
And as no Person in the present Case is proved to be active in carrying on the Prosecution, the Defendant must plead to the Indictment without any Indorsement”
About the Author
