Abshire v. State
Decision Date | 06 October 1927 |
Docket Number | No. 25339.,25339. |
Citation | 158 N.E. 227,199 Ind. 474 |
Parties | ABSHIRE v. STATE. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Vanderburgh Circuit Court; Charles P. Bock, Judge.
Archie Abshire was convicted of rape, and adjudged to be an habitual criminal, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Ernest J. Crenshaw, of Evansville, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Gause, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
It was charged by an amended affidavit that the appellant committed the crime of rape on one E. B., a woman over the age of 16 years. Said crime is defined in section 1, c. 148, Acts 1921, p. 373; and in section 2429, Burns' 1926. It was also charged therein that he had been previously twice convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned in a penal institution for felonies. The law defining an habitual criminal is set out in section 1, c. 82, Acts 1907, p. 109; and in section 2339, Burns' 1926. He entered a plea of not guilty. The trial was by the court without a jury.
The court found that he was guilty of the crime of rape as charged, and that he had previously been convicted of the felony of assault and battery with intent to commit rape and of the felony of grand larceny, and served sentences in a penal institution for each of said felonies. The court adjudged that he was guilty of rape, and sentenced him to be committed for said offense to the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than 5 nor more than 21 years, and assessed a fine of $1,000. The court further adjudged that he was an habitual criminal, within the meaning of the statute, and that he should be committed to the Indiana State Prison for and during his life as an habitual criminal. He filed a motion for a new trial, stating as causes therefor that the finding of the court was contrary to law, and that the finding of the court was not sustained by sufficient evidence, which motion was overruled. On appeal, the overruling of the motion for a new trial is assigned as error.
The prosecuting witness, after stating her name, testified as follows:
On cross-examination, she testified:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thomas v. State
... ... present a question of fact for the jury. Anderson v. State, ... supra; Rahke v. State, supra; Ritter v. State, supra ... The ... appellant raises some question as to the necessity for ... corroborating the testimony of the prosecuting witness. It ... was held in Abshire v. State, 1927, 199 Ind. 474, ... 477, 158 N.E. 227, 228, that: 'In this state, there is no ... statute requiring the complaining party, where the defendant ... is being prosecuted for the crime of rape, to be ... corroborated, and any evidence that is sufficient to ... convince [227 Ind. 46] ... ...