Bleiweiss v. State
| Decision Date | 25 April 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 23386.,23386. |
| Citation | 188 Ind. 184,119 N.E. 375 |
| Parties | BLEIWEISS v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.
Maurice Bleiweiss was convicted of assault and battery, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Myers, Gates & Ralston, Quincy A. Myers, Edward E. Gates and Samuel M. Ralston, all of Indianapolis, for appellant. Elmer E. Hastings, of Washington, Ind., and Dale F. Stansbury and Ele Stansbury, both of Indianapolis, for the State.
[1] Appeal from a judgment of conviction based on an indictment which charges appellant with the offense of assault and battery. The assignment of errors contains two specifications, one of which is directed against the sufficiency of the indictment and the other challenges the action of the lower court in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. That motion contains four grounds, but, in the preparation of his brief, appellant has failed to group his points and authorities under proper headings as required by rule 22 (55 N. E. v.), and his several propositions of law, which are ten in number, are stated in abstract form and practically without reference to the particular circumstances in issue. Under the rules governing the preparation of briefs we would be justified in affirming the judgment of the trial court without further comment, but we have taken occasion to examine the principal questions discussed by counsel in argument, and find that their solution requires a consideration of the evidence introduced at the trial. From that evidence it appears that appellant, while driving an automobile over one of the principal streets in a residence section of the city of Indianapolis, struck a motorcycle on which the prosecuting witness was riding and caused him severe injuries. The testimony on some of the material issues is in conflict, but there is evidence from which the trial court may have concluded that appellant's machine was moving at a speed of about 35 miles an hour, and that he was not exercising proper care for the safety of other persons who might be using the street.
[2][3][4] There can be no doubt that an assault and battery may be committed by striking another with an automobile (Luther v. State [1912] 177 Ind. 619, 624, 98 N. E. 640), although, of course, there must be some evidence of a criminal intent. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
... ... See, ... also: People v. Vasquez, 85 Cal.App. 575, 259 P ... 1005; Winkler v. State, 45 Okla. Crim. 322, 283 P ... 591; Chambliss v. State, 37 Ga.App. 124, 139 S.E ... 80; Shorter v. State, 147 Tenn. 355, 247 S.W. 985; ... State v. Schutte, 87 N.J.L. 15, 93 A. 112; ... Bleiweiss v. State, 188 Ind. 184, 119 N.E. 375, and, ... on petition for rehearing, 122 N.E. 577. Valuable notes on ... this subject will be found in 53 A. L. R. at p. 254 and 99 A ... L. R. at p. 835 ... The ... third and fourth instructions given to the jury are as ... "3 ... ...
-
Angel v. State
...a specific criminal act may be presumed from the voluntary commission of the act. 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 34, p. 92. Bleiweiss v. State (1918), 188 Ind. 184, 119 N.E. 375, 122 N.E. 577. . . The court stated, in England v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 446, 233 N.E.2d 168, as follows: 'We conclude......
-
Ware v. State, 172A26
... ... Bloch v. State (1903), 161 Ind. 276, 68 N.E. 287 ... 'It is well established that the issue of intent is for the jury to determine. See: Kondrup v. State, supra; Tait v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; Bleiweiss v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 184, 119 N.E. 375, 122 N.E. 577. Further, if two reasonable inferences arise from circumstantial evidence--one of guilt and one of innocence--this Court will not determine which inference controls, that ... being within the province of the jury. Shutt v. State (1954), ... ...
-
Davis v. State, 168
... ... Bloch v. State (1903) 161 Ind. 276, 68 N.E. 287 ... It is well established that the issue of intent is for the jury to determine. See: Kondrup v. State, supra; Tait v. State (1963) 244 Ind. 35, 188 N.E.2d 537; Bleiweiss v. State (1919) 188 Ind. 184, 119 N.E. 375, 122 N.E. 577. Further, if two reasonable inferences arise from circumstantial evidence--one of guilt and one of innocence--this Court will not determine which inference controls, that being within the province of the jury. Shutt v. State (1954) 233 Ind ... ...