Archer v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1886 |
| Parties | Archer v. State. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Archer
v.
State.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 24, 1886.
Appeal from Martin circuit court.
Moser & Houghton, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
Elliott, J.
The appellant was jointly indicted with eight others for the murder of Samuel A. Bunch. The state elected to try the appellant separately, and the trial resulted in a judgment declaring him guilty of murder in the first degree, and adjudging that he suffer the penalty of death. The indictment was returned by the grand jury of Martin county, the trial was had in that county, and judgment was there pronounced. The facts, as we gather them from the evidence, are these: Martin Archer, a kinsman of the appellant and of five of the persons indicted with him, was killed, as they believed, by Samuel Marley. Marley fled the country shortly after the death of Martin Archer, but the appellant and his kinsmen believed that Bunch, the deceased, harbored him, and assisted him to escape. They watched the house of Bunch for several days and nights, and received information which led them to believe that he had assisted Marley to flee, and this excited in them angry and revengeful feelings. They ascertained that Bunch, on the afternoon before his death, had gone to a secluded place to secure some of his hogs which had broken into the field of a neighbor named Ryan. They there forcibly seized and bound him with hickory withes. The place where he was seized and bound was in Martin county. He was detained at this place for some hours, and then taken to a cave in Orange county, called “Saltpeter Cave.” This cave was about two miles distant from the Martin county line. The men who captured and bound him were armed with guns and pistols, and with these in hand, and ready for instant use, they took him to the cave, where they shot him many times, each emptying the contents of his gun or pistol into his body. His body was left lying in the cave for some days, when it was taken out and burned.
[7 N.E. 226]
From these circumstances, and from the declarations of the appellant and those who united with him in the murder of Bunch, it is evident that the capture was made pursuant to a preconceived plan to take his life. This conclusion is fully warranted by the evidence, and is undoubtedly that reached by the jury. The circumstances unite with great strength in proof of the fact that the seizure and binding of the deceased were part of a previously arranged plan, and that the appellant, with at least four others, joined in arranging and executing this plan. It is true that Lynch, who was present and assisted in killing Bunch in the cave, testified, when called as a witness by the state, that the purpose to kill the captive was not communicated to him until the cave was reached; but, nevertheless, the circumstances conclusively prove that the capture was made with the intention and purpose of taking the life of the captured man. Forcibly seizing and binding a man without legal excuse or justification is an assault; and if done for the purpose of carrying into execution a preconceived plan to murder the person so seized and bound, is an initial step in the crime. An assault is an element in the crime of murder, and the assault first made in this instance constituted an important step in the crime, for it kept the victim within the power of his captors until the cave was reached on the night of his death. The crime which culminated in the death of Bunch in the cave in Orange county was a single one, although composed of several elements, and the acts done in Martin county were not distinct criminal acts, but were parts of one crime consummated in the adjoining county. Suppose, for the sake of illustration, that a man is seized, bound, and gagged in one county, pursuant to a preconcerted plan; that while he is thus helpless he is taken to a cave in another county, and there left to die: would it be doubted that the first act-the seizure and binding-was but a part of the crime of murder? There is no difference in principle between the supposed case and the real one; for, if the act is a material part of the crime, then, no matter where death results, the place of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial