Bowens v. State, No. 28930

Docket NºNo. 28930
Citation231 Ind. 559, 109 N.E.2d 91
Case DateDecember 12, 1952
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 91

109 N.E.2d 91
231 Ind. 559
BOWENS

v.
STATE.
No. 28930.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Dec. 12, 1952.

Thomas M. Crowdus, Indianapolis, for appellant.

J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., John Ready O'Connor, William T. McClain and Thos. J. Faulconer, III, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.

JASPER, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment with murder in the first degree, under § 10-3401, Burns' 1942 Replacement. He was found guilty of manslaughter by a jury, and was sentenced to serve not less than two nor more than twenty-one years in the Indiana State Prison. From a judgment on the verdict, he presents this appeal.

[231 Ind. 560] The sole assignment of error is the overruling of appellant's motion for new trial. Under this assignment, appellant asserts that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.

Appellant contends that the evidence shows without conflict that his killing of the deceased was done in self-defense.

The evidence most favorable to appellee reveals that appellant, on December 2, 1950, met his wife and Raymond Bowens in a shoe repair shop; that the three went to the home of appellant where they drank some whiskey; that during the evening both appellant and the deceased, Raymond Bowens, cried; that appellant slapped his wife while arguing over money, and Raymond Bowens protested. The deceased was then going to take appellant's wife 'out of there'; that she got her coat 'and was going to carry Raymond out of there.' Appellant then ran upstairs for his gun, and when his wife next saw him he was on the third step from the top with the gun in his hand. She then ran outside. The deceased was standing by the kitchen door with his hat and coat on. Appellant's wife pleaded with the deceased to come out. In answer

Page 92

to the question: 'Did you see him then go out?' she answered: 'I said I saw him make two or three attempts, but I don't know whether he was trying to come out or not. I kept on pleading with him to come out, and he wouldn't come out.' She said that she then heard a gunshot and ran to call the police. She saw her husband leave the house. He climbed over the woodshed.

Raymond Bowens, the deceased, was found lying on the kitchen floor, with his head in the doorway, about ten feet from the stairway, with an open knife a few inches south of his right hand, and with a gunshot wound in his head, from which he died on December 3, [231 Ind. 561] 1950. An empty shotgun shell was found near the stairway. Appellant admitted that he was standing on the stairway and shot the deceased. Appellant was unharmed, and the knife found near the deceased had nothing on it. In a conversation, the wife of appellant stated to her husband: 'Willie, you didn't have to do that. You didn't have to kill Raymond Bowen.'

Self-defense is an ultimate fact solely for the determination of the jury. Landreth v. State, 1930, 201 Ind....

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Baker v. State, No. 29297
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1956
    ...230 Ind. 635, 639, 106 N.E.2d 226; Harrison v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 147, 168, 106 N.E.2d 912, 32 A.L.R.2d 875; Bowens v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 559, 562, 563, 109 N.E.2d 91; Shutt v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 169, 117 N.E.2d The rule of law defining proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been well......
  • Epps v. State, No. 30102
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 23, 1963
    ...and the verdict of the jury reached a contrary conclusion, the verdict will be disturbed as being contrary to law. Bowens v. State (1953), 231 Ind. 559, 563, 109 N.E.2d When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we must take into consideration only that evidence most favorable to the......
  • Briscoe v. State, No. 1-1077A238
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 2, 1979
    ...230 Ind. 635, 639, 106 N.E.2d 226; Harrison v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 147, 168, 106 N.E.2d 912, 32 A.L.R.2d 875; Bowens v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 559, 562, 563, 109 N.E.2d 91; Shutt v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 169, 117 N.E.2d Justice Hunter, writing for the majority in Liston v. State, (1969) 25......
  • Tait v. State, No. 30164
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 13, 1963
    ...will be disturbed as being contrary to law. Souerdike v. State, 1952, Ind.Sup., [231 Ind. 204], 108 N.E.2d 136.' Bowens v. State (1953), 231 Ind. 559, 563, 109 N.E.2d 91, The evidence most favorable to the State, as previously set forth in this opinion, will not permit a reversal under the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Baker v. State, No. 29297
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1956
    ...230 Ind. 635, 639, 106 N.E.2d 226; Harrison v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 147, 168, 106 N.E.2d 912, 32 A.L.R.2d 875; Bowens v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 559, 562, 563, 109 N.E.2d 91; Shutt v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 169, 117 N.E.2d The rule of law defining proof beyond a reasonable doubt has been well......
  • Epps v. State, No. 30102
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 23, 1963
    ...and the verdict of the jury reached a contrary conclusion, the verdict will be disturbed as being contrary to law. Bowens v. State (1953), 231 Ind. 559, 563, 109 N.E.2d When considering the sufficiency of the evidence, we must take into consideration only that evidence most favorable to the......
  • Briscoe v. State, No. 1-1077A238
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 2, 1979
    ...230 Ind. 635, 639, 106 N.E.2d 226; Harrison v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 147, 168, 106 N.E.2d 912, 32 A.L.R.2d 875; Bowens v. State, 1952, 231 Ind. 559, 562, 563, 109 N.E.2d 91; Shutt v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 169, 117 N.E.2d Justice Hunter, writing for the majority in Liston v. State, (1969) 25......
  • Tait v. State, No. 30164
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 13, 1963
    ...will be disturbed as being contrary to law. Souerdike v. State, 1952, Ind.Sup., [231 Ind. 204], 108 N.E.2d 136.' Bowens v. State (1953), 231 Ind. 559, 563, 109 N.E.2d 91, The evidence most favorable to the State, as previously set forth in this opinion, will not permit a reversal under the ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT