Bleiweiss v. State

• Decision Date: 27 March 1919
• Docket Number: No. 23386.,23386.
• Citation: 188 Ind. 184,122 N.E. 577
• Parties: BLEIWEISS v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

188 Ind. 184

122 N.E. 577

BLEIWEISS

v.STATE.

No. 23386.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 27, 1919.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.

On petition for rehearing. Petition overruled.

For former opinion, see 119 N. E. 375.

Quincy A. Myers, Edward E. Gates, and Samuel M. Ralston, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

WILLOUGHBY, J.

In this case the appellant has filed a petition for rehearing, and claims that the evidence does not sustain the judgment. In the original opinion the court waived the infirmities in appellant's brief, and considered the questions discussed, one of which was the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment. The appellant claims that under the evidence the court was not warranted in finding any criminal intent on the part of this defendant. This court will not disturb a verdict in a criminal case on the weight of the evidence. It is only where there is an entire failure of the evidence to sustain the finding or the verdict on some material point that the Supreme Court will reverse the judgment on account of insufficient evidence. Lee v. State, 156 Ind. 541, 60 N. E. 299;Shular v. State, 160 Ind. 300, 66 N. E. 746;Keith v. State, 157 Ind. 376, 61 N. E. 716.

In Luther v. State, 177 Ind. 619, 625, 98 N. E. 640, 642, the court said:

“Intent, on the part of the person charged, to apply the force constituting the battery, is *** an essential element of the offense” of assault and battery. “But the intent may be inferred from circumstances which legitimately permit it. *** It may be from intentional acts, where the injury was the direct result of them, done under circumstances showing a reckless disregard for the safety of others, and a willingness to inflict the injury, or the commission of an unlawful act which leads directly and naturally to the injury.”

In that case the court in discussing this principle said:

“The law is regardful of human life and personal safety, and, if one is grossly and wantonly reckless in exposing others to danger, it holds him to have intended the natural consequences of his act, and treats him as guilty of a willful and intentional wrong.”

In Schneider v. State, 181 Ind. 219, 104 N. E. 69, the court said:

“Intent in a criminal case is a question of fact to be determined by the court or jury trying the case, from all the evidence introduced on the trial, and where there is some evidence sufficient to present an issue of fact, and that issue having been decided by the court or jury to which it was submitted, this court has no power to question that finding.”

In this case the appellant testified:

“I quite frequently pass by Sixteenth and Central. I certainly know it is a very dangerous corner. I believe that is a closely built up portion of the city. I was not familiar with the exact figures of the speed law, but I have been told it was 15 miles an hour.”

A policeman, who was stationed at that place, and who witnessed the collision,...