to the contrary.5 56 It has been held that the rule requiring the accessary to be indicted as such is not changed by a statute which merely provides that every accessary before the fact shall be punished as if he were a principal in the first degree, and may be indicted, convicted and punished whether the principal be convicted or amenable to justice or not.57 And it has also been held that an accessary cannot be indicted as a principal where the statute makes aiding, abetting or procuring another to commit a felony a substantive offense, 58 If the offense can be committed only by persons of a specified class, aiders and abettors cannot be charged as principals if they are outside of the statutory designation.59 And this has been he'd to be true even in the case of misdemeanors.60 § 253. Guilt of principal. Before a person can be convicted as an accessary before or after the fact the guilt of the principal must be shown.61 And this is true even where the statute allows an acces 112 N. Y. 79, 19 N. E. 638, 8 Am. St. Rep. 701; People v. Eichner, 168 App. Div. 200, 154 N. Y. Supp. 44; People v. Britton, 134 App. Div. 275, 118 N. Y. Supp. 989. Oklahoma. Wishard v. State, 5 Okla. Cr. 610, 115 Pac. 796. Under the federal penal code an indictment charging a defendant as an aider, inducer and abettor of the person who does the act states the offense against him as a principal even though the offense is a misdemeanor. Ruthenberg v. United States, 245 U. S. 480, 62 L. Ed. 414, 38 Sup. Ct. 168. 56 Jones v. State, 108 Ark. 447, 158 S. W. 132; Hunter v. State, 104 Ark. 245, 149 S. W. 99; Ray v. State, 102 Ark. 594, 145 S. W. 881; Williams v. State, 41 Ark. 173; Smith v. State, 37 Ark. 274. 57 Hatchett v. Com., 75 Va. 925; Thornton v. Com., 24 Gratt. (Va.) 657; State v. Roberts, 50 W. Va. 422, 40 S. E. 484; Krueger v. State, 171 Wis. 566, 177 N. W. 917; Karakutza v. State, 163 Wis. 293, 156 N. W. 965. 58 State v. Ricker, 29 Me. 84; Skidmore v. State, 80 Neb. 698, 115 N. W. 288; Oerter v. State, 57 Neb. 135, 77 N. W. 367; Casey v. State, 49 Neb. 403, 68 N. W. 643. In State v. Bryson, 173 N. C. 803, 92 S. E. 698, it was held that one indicted for murder as a principal and convicted of murder in the second degree and given a lighter sentence than might have been imposed had he been convicted as an accessary, could not complain, although the proof showed that he was an accessary before the fact. It was further held that the indictment charging him with murder charged a substantive felony. 59 Shannon v. People, 5 Mich. 71. And see People v. Britton, 134 N. Y. App. Div. 275, 118 N. Y. Supp. 989. 60 People v. Meisner, 178 Mich. 115, 144 N. W. 490; Shannon v. People, 5 Mich. 71. 61 Arkansas. Ray v. State, 102 Ark. 594, 145 S. W. 881. Florida. Thomas v. State, 73 Fla. 115, 74 So. 1. sary to be tried before conviction of the principal,62 or provides that Georgia. Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S. E. 1, aff'd 201 U. S. 638, 50 L. Ed. 899, 26 Sup. Ct. 560, 5 Ann. Cas. 783; Edwards v. State, 80 Ga. 127, 4 S. E. 268; Simmons v. State, 4 Ga. 465; Gullatt v. State, 14 Ga. App. 53, 80 S. E. 340. Illinois. People v. Jordan, 244 Ill. 386, 91 N. E. 482; Baxter v. People, 2 Gilm. (7 Ill.) 578. Kentucky. Reed v. Com., 125 Ky.. 126, 100 S. W. 856; Begley v. Com., 26 Ky. L. Rep. 598, 82 S. W. 285. Massachusetts. Com. v. Derry, 221 Mass. 45, 108 N. E. 890. And see Com. v. Asherowski, 196 Mass. 342, 82 N. E. 13. Montana. State v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998, 31 L. R. A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655. New Jersey. State v. Fiore, 85 N. J. L. 311, 88 Atl. 1039. New York. People v. Dom Pedro, 19 Misc. 300, 43 N. Y. Supp. 44. Oregon. State v. Steeves, 29 Ore. 85, 43 Pac. 947. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Vitale, 250 Pa. 548, 95 Atl. 723; Com. v. Minnich, 250 Pa. 363, 95 Atl. 565, L. R. A. 1916 B 950. Tennessee. Pierce v. State, 130 Tenn. 24, 168 S. W. 851, Ann. Cas. 1916 B 137. Texas. Fondren v. State, 74 Tex. Cr. 552, 169 S. W. 411; Millner v. State, 72 Tex. Cr. 45, 162 S. W. 348; Kaufman v. State, 70 Tex. Cr. 438, 159 S. W. 58; Cooper v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 405, 154 S. W. 989; Harrison v. State, 69 Tex. Cr. 291, 153 S. W. 139; Gibson v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 349, 110 S. W. 41; Crook v. State, 27 Tex. App. 198, 11 S. W. 444. West Virginia. State v. Lilly, 47 W. Va. 496, 35 S. E. 837. Wisconsin. Ogden v. State, 12 Wis. 532, 78 Am. Dec. 754. It is not enough to show that he was accused of a felony. Poston v. State, 12 Tex. App. 408. The person actually committing the deed must be a guilty party, and not an innocent agent, for, as we have seen, one who procures the commission of a felony through the instrumentality of an innocent agent is himself the principal in the first degree. See § 227, supra. 62 Alabama. McMahan v. State, 168 Ala. 70, 53 So. 89. California. Ex parte Sullivan, 17 Cal. App. 278, 119 Pac. 526. Connecticut. State v. Wakefield, 88 Conn. 164, 90 Atl. 230. Indiana. Murphy v. State, 184 Ind. 15, 110 N. E. 198; Ulmer v. State, 14 Ind. 52. Kentucky. Reed v. Com., 125 Ky. 126, 100 S. W. 856; Begley v. Com., 26 Ky. L. Rep. 598, 82 S. W. 285; Tully v. Com., 11 Bush 154. Mississippi. Osborne v. State, 99 Miss. 410, 55 So. 52. Montana. State v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998, 31 L. R. A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655. Oregon. State v. Steeves, 29 Ore. 85, 43 Pac. 947. Pennsylvania. Buck v. Com., 107 Pa. St. 486. Tennessee. Self v. State, 6 Baxt. 244. Texas. Thomason v. State, 71 Tex. Cr. 439, 160 S. W. 359; Gibson v. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 349, 110 S. W. 41; Armstrong v. State, 33 Tex. Cr. 417, 26 S. W. 829. Virginia. Hatchett v. Com., 75 Va. 925. Wisconsin. Karakutza v. State, 163 Wis. 293, 156 N. W. 965; Ogden v. State, 12 Wis. 532, 78 Am. Dec. 754. he may be charged, tried and convicted in the same manner as if he were a principal.68 The record of the conviction of the principal is competent evidence to show his guilt on the trial of an accessary, 64 and is prima facie evidence of such guilt.65 But it is only prima facie evidence, and the accessary may offer parol evidence to show that the principal was not in fact guilty of the felony charged.66 The state may 63 Connecticut. State v. Wakefield, 88 Conn. 164, 90 Atl. 230. Iowa. State v. Brown, 130 Iowa 57, 106 N. W. 379. Kansas. State v. Mosley, 31 Kan. 355, 2 Pac. 782. Montana. State v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998, 31 L. R. A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655. Nevada. It has been held that the principal offense must be shown to have been committed by some one, but it is not necessary that he be identified and his guilt proven. State v. Jones, 7 Nev. 408. 64 Arkansas. Tiner v. State, 110 Ark. 251, 161 S. W. 195; Jones v. State, 108 Ark. 447, 158 S. W. 132. Georgia. Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98, 80 S. E. 649; Thompson v. State, 16 Ga. App. 832, 84 S. E. 591; Snow v. State, 5 Ga. App. 608, 63 S. E. 651. Mississippi. Osborne v. State, 99 Miss. 410, 55 So. 52; Keithler v. State, 10 Smedes & M. 192. Montana. State v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998, 31 L. R. A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655. New Jersey. State v. Fiore, 85 N. J. L. 311, 88 Atl. 1039. Ga. 98, 80 S. E. 649; Osborne v. State, 99 Miss. 410, 55 So. 52. 65 Arkansas. Tiner v. State, 110 Ark. 251, 161 S. W. 195; Jones v. State, 108 Ark. 447, 158 S. W. 132. California. People v. Bearss, 10 Cal. 68. Georgia. Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S. E. 1, aff'd 201 U. S. 638, 50 L. Ed. 899, 26 Sup. Ct. 560, 5 Ann. Cas. 783; Groves v. State, 76 Ga. 808; Thompson v. State, 16 Ga. App. 832, 84 S. E. 591. Illinois. Baxter v. People, 2 Gilm. (7 Ill.) 578. Kansas. State v. Patterson, 52 Kan. 335, 34 Pac. 784; State v. Bogue, 52 Kan. 79, 34 Pac. 410; State v. Mosley, 31 Kan. 355, 2 Pac. 782. Maine. State v. Ricker, 29 Me. 84. Massachusetts. Com. v. Knapp, 10 Pick. 477, 20 Am. Dec. 534. Pennsylvania. Com. v. Minnich, 250 Pa. 363, 95 Atl. 565, L. R. A. 1916 B 950. 66 Arkansas. Tiner v. State, 110 Ark. 251, 161 S. W. 195; Jones v. State, 108 Ark. 447, 158 S. W. 132. Georgia. Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98, 80 S. E. 649; Snow v. State, 5 Ga. App. 608, 63 S. E. 651. Maine. State v. Ricker, 29 Me. 84. Com. v. Knapp, 10 Massachusetts. Pick. 477, 20 Am. Dec. 534. Montana. State v. Gleim, 17 Mont. 17, 41 Pac. 998, 31 L. R. A. 294, 52 Am. St. Rep. 655. New Jersey. State v. Fiore, 85 N. J. LA 311, 88 Atl. 1039. also introduce any evidence of the principal's guilt which would be competent against the principal,67 and may prove by parol that the principal was in fact guilty of a higher crime than that of which he has been convicted.68 § 254. - Trial before conviction of principal-In general. At common law, and except where the rule has been changed by statute, an accessary cannot be tried, without his consent, until the guilt of the principal has been legally ascertained by a conviction or outlawry, unless they are tried together, and then the jury must be charged to inquire first as to the guilt of the principal, and, if they are satisfied of his guilt, then as to the accessary.69 If the principal North Carolina. State v. Duncan, 28 N. C. (6 Ired.) 98. South Carolina. State v. Burbage, 51 S. C. 284, 28 S. E. 937; State v. Crank, 2 Bailey 66, 23 Am. Dec. 117. Texas. Dent v. State, 43 Tex. Cr. 126, 65 S. W. 627. The principal's plea of guilty is not conclusive against the accessary. Nor does it estop the principal from testifying to facts showing that he was wrongly convicted, and was in fact not a principal to the crime as charged. Snow v. State, 5 Ga. App. 608, 63 S. E. 651. 67 Tiner v. State, 110 Ark. 251, 161 S. W. 195; Jones v. State, 108 Ark. 447, 158 S. W. 132; Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S. E. 1, aff'd 201 U. S. 638, 50 L. Ed. 899, 26 Sup. Ct. 560, 5 Ann. Cas. 783; State v. Patterson, 52 Kan. 335, 34 Pac. 784; State v. Bogue, 52 Kan. 79, 34 Pac. 410; State v. Mosley, 31 Kan. 355, 2 Pac. 782; State v. Duncan, 28 N. C. (6 Ired.) 98. 68 State v. Burbage, 51 S. C. 284, 28 S. E. 937, where it was held that the fact that the principal on an indictment for murder has been convicted of manslaughter only, will not prevent the trial of an accessary on a charge of being accessary to the crime of murder, or prevent the state from showing on such trial that the principal was in fact guilty of murder. 69 Fost. C. L. 361. See also the following decisions: United States. United States v. Crane, 4 McLean 317, Fed. Cas. No. 14,888. Connecticut. State v. Hamlin, 47 Conn. 95, 36 Am. Rep. 54. Florida. Ex parte Bowen, 25 Fla. 214, 6 So. 65. Georgia. Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98, 80 S. E. 649. Illinois. People v. Jordan, 244 Ill. 386, 91 N. E. 482. Kentucky. Com. v. Hicks, 118 Ky. 637, 82 S. W. 265, 4 Ann. Cas. 1154; Begley v. Com., 26 Ky. L. Rep. 598, 82 S. W. 285. Massachusetts. Com. v. Phillips, 16 Mass. 423; Com. v. Knapp, 10 Pick 477, 20 Am. Dec. 534. New York. Starin v. People, 45 N. Y. 333. North Carolina. State v. Jones, 101 N. C. 719, 8 S. E. 147; State v. Ludwick, 61 N. C. 401; State v. Duncan, 28 N. C. (6 Ired.) 98; State v. Groff, 1 Murph. 270. Pennsylvania. Holmes v. Com., 25 Pa. 221; Stoops v. Com., 7 Serg. & R. 491, 10 Am. Dec. 482. South Carolina. State v. Burbage, 51 S. C. 284, 28 S. E. 937. Tennessee. Pierce v. State, 130 Tenn. 24, 168 S. W. 851, Ann. Cas. dies without conviction,70 or if he is acquitted on his trial," the accessary cannot be tried, and reversal of a judgment against the principal operates as a discharge of the accessary.72 And for this reason an accessary to the crime of suicide could not be punished at common law because it was impossible to convict the principal.7 But a pardon of the principal does not discharge the accessary, for the very fact that the pardon is extended imports a final conviction.74 And if several are alleged to be principals, proof of the conviction of any one of them is sufficient.75 73 At common law it was necessary to set out the record of the conviction of the principal in an indictment against the accessary, 76 and to introduce such record on the trial of the accessary, as the See also Com. v. Woodward, Thatch. C. C. (Mass.) 63; Baron v. People, 1 Park. Cr. R. (N. Y.) 246; Com. v. Andrews, 3 Mass. 126; Smith v. State, 46 Ga. 298. At common law, where the principal was convicted by verdict or confessed and had his clergy before judgment, the accessary was discharged because it did not appear judicially that he was the principal. Bibithe's Case, 4 Coke 43b. The rule does not prevent the indictment of both in the same bill, in which case both may be embraced in the same count, and where this is done it is not necessary to allege the trial and conviction of the principal, or that for any reason he cannot be tried. Rawlins v. State, 124 Ga. 31, 52 S. E. 1, aff'd 201 U. S. 638, 50 L. Ed. 899, 26 Sup. Ct. 560, 5 Ann. Cas. 783; Stone v. State, 118 Ga. 705, 45 S. E. 630, 98 Am. St. Rep. 145. Both the principal and accessary after the fact may be charged in one indictment, and when this is done they should be joined in the same count. People v. Jordan, 244 Ill. 386, 91 N. E. 482, citing many authorities. The accessary may waive this right both at common law and where it is preserved by statute. Cantrell V. State, 141 Ga. 98, 80 S. E. 649. 70 Com. v. Phillips, 16 Mass. 423; State v. McDaniel, 41 Tex. 229. 71 See § 256, infra. 72 Ray v. State, 13 Neb. 55, 13 N. W. 2; Marshe's Case, 1 Leon. 325. 73 McMahan v. State, 168 Ala. 70, 53 So. 89; Com. v. Hicks, 118 Ky. 637, 82 S. W. 265, 4 Ann. Cas. 1154; Rex v. Russell, 1 Moody C. C. 356; Reg. v. Leddington, 9 Car. & P. 79. 74 Cantrell v. State, 141 Ga. 98, 80 S. E. 649; Kingsbury v. State, 37 Tex. Cr. R. 259, 39 S. W. 365. 75 Braxley v. State, 17 Ga. App. 196, |