CONVICTION (Lat. connictio; from con, with, vinoime, to bind). In Practice. That legal proceeding of record which ascertains the guilt of the party and upon which the sentence or judgment is founded. Nason v. Staples, 48 Me. 123; Corn. v. Lockwood, 109 Mass. 323, 12 Am. Rep. 699; Com. v. Gor ham, 99 Mass. 420.
Finding a person guilty by verdict of a jury. 1 Bish. Cr. L. § 223; see 45 Alb. L. J. 1.
A record of the summary proceedings up on any penal statute before one or more justices of the peace or other persons duly authorized; in a case where the offender has been convicted and sentenced. Holthouse, Dict.
In its popular sense a verdict of guilty is said to be a conviction; Smith v. Com., 14 S. & R. (Pa.) 69. In its strict legal sense it means judgment on a plea or verdict of guilty ; Com. v. McDermott, 224 Pa. 363, 73 Atl. 427, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 431.
The first of the definitions here given undoubtedly represents the accurate meaning of the term, and includes an ascertainment of the guilt of the party by an authorized magistrate in a summary way, or by confession of the party himself, as well as by verdict of a jury. The word is also used in each of the other senses given. It is said to be sometimes used to denote final judgment. Dwar. 2d ed. 683.
Summary conviction is one which takes place before an authorized magistrate with out the intervention of a jury.
Conviction must precede judgment or sen tence; In re McNeill, 1 Cai. (N. Y.) 72; State v. Cross, 34 Me. 594; see Faunce v. People, 51 Ill. 311; but it is not necessarily or always followed by it; 1 Den. C. C. 568; Ex parte Dick, 14 Pick (Mass.) 88; Kane v. People, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 204; Smith v. Barnes, 3 Scam. (Ill.) 76, 36 Am. Dec. 515. Generally, when several are charged in the same indictment, some may be convicted and the others acquitted; 2 Den. C. C. 86; State v. Allen, 11 N. C. 356 ; Bloomhuff v. State, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 205 ; but not where a joint offence is charged; Stephens v. State, 14 Ohio, 386; State v. Mainor, 28 N. C. 340. A person cannot be convicted of part of an offence charged in an indictment, except by statute; Com. v. Newell, 7 Mass. 250; State v. Shoemaker, 7 Mo. 177; State v. Bridges, 5 N. C. 134; Cameron v. State, 13 Ark. 712. A conviction prevents a second prosecution for the same offence; Whart. Cr. PL § 456;
II. S. v. Keen, 1 McLean 429, Fed. Cas. No. 15,510; State v. Benham, 7 Conn. 414 ; Mount v. State, '14 Ohio 295, 45 Am. Dec. 542 ; State v. Norvell, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.) 24, 24 Am. Dec. 458; Solliday v. Com., 28 Pa. 13. But the recovery in a civil suit, of a fine, part of a penalty under a statute, does not prevent the prosecution of the defendant for the pur pose of enforcing the full penalty by impris onment; In re Leszynsky, 16 Blatchf. 9, Fed. Cas. No. 8,279. A conviction of a less offence may be had where the indictment charges a greater offence, which necessarily includes the less ; State v. Outerbridge, 82 N. C. 621; Green v. State, 8 Tex. App. 71; De Lacy v. State, 8 Bast. (Tenn.) 401; State v. O'Kane, 23 Kan. 244; State v. Schele, 52 Ia. 608, 3 N. W. 632. As to the rule where the indict ment under which the conviction is pfocured is defective and liable to be set aside, see 1 Bish. Cr. L. §§ 663, 664; 4 Co. 44 a.
At common law conviction of certain crimes when accompanied by judgment dis qualifies the person convicted as a witness ; Keithler v. State, 10 Smedes & M. (Miss.) 192. And see Utley v. Merrick, 11 Metc. (Mass.) 302. But where a statute making defendants witnesses 'is without exception, a conviction rendering such defendant infamous will not disqualify him ; Delamater v. People, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 332; Newman v. People, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 630. See Cora. v. Wright, 107 Mass.1 403.
Summary convictions, being obtained by proceedings in derogation of the common law, must be obtained strictly in pursuance of the provisions of the statute ; 1 Burr. 613 ; and the record must show fully that all proper steps have been taken ; Welman v. Polhill, R. M. Charlt. (Ga.) 235; Singleton v. Com'rs of Tobacco Inspection, 2 Bay (S. C.) Bigelow v. Stearns, 19 Johns. (N. Y.) 39, 41, 10 Am. Dec. 189; Chase v. Hatha way, 14 Mass. 224 ; Cumming's Case, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 51; Keeler v. Milledge, 24 N. J. L. 142; and especially that the court had jurisdic tion ; Brackett v. State, 2 Tyler (Vt.) 167; Powers v. People, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 292 ; May or, etc., of City of Philadelphia v. Nell, 3 Yeates (Pa.) 475.
As to payment of costs upon conviction, see 1 Bish. Cr. Pr. § 1317, n.