Brattain v. State, No. 28051.

Docket NºNo. 28051.
Citation61 N.E.2d 462, 223 Ind. 489
Case DateJune 14, 1945
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

223 Ind. 489
61 N.E.2d 462

BRATTAIN
v.
STATE.

No. 28051.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 14, 1945.


John C. Brattain was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

[61 N.E.2d 463]

Appeal from Hamilton Circuit Court; Cassius M. Gentry, Judge.
Fred E. Hines, of Noblesville, for appellant.

James A. Emmert, Atty. Gen., and Frank E. Coughlin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


STARR, Judge.

Appellant was indicted for murder in the second degree. He entered a plea of not guilty and filed an answer alleging that at the time of the commission of the alleged offense he was temporarily insane. There was a trial by jury, resulting in a verdict of guilty as charged, and fixing his sentence at imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison during life. Motion for a new trial was overruled, and judgment was entered on the verdict.

On November 7, 1943, appellant and his mother, Margaret Brattain, a woman about 78 years of age, resided together on a farm near Clarksville, in Hamilton County. About noon of that day, Earl Burke, who lived close by, heard a scream and pleading, whereupon he drove to appellant's home, where he found the deceased lying in the yard, covered with blood, and her clothing disarranged. The appellant, who was crouched over her, and seemed to have his hands on her face and neck, yelled and ran behind the house. There was blood on the porch, scattered in the yard, and on a two-by-six board lying in the yard. In the kitchen the table was upside down, food was scattered about the room, and dishes were broken. The witness Burke, being fearful that the appellant might injure himself or the witness, drove to the home of one Roy Strite, about 40 or 50 rods from appellant's home. The appellant jumped on the running board of a passing automobile and, as it turned into Strite's driveway, jumped off and started away. Questioned by Strite, the appellant said that somebody over there was trying to kill his mother, and he asked Strite to help him, whereupon appellant and Roy Strite started for appellant's home. On the way they talked about crops and wages, and the appellant said, ‘If I have to leave, why don't you buy them cows?’ He further said, ‘You wouldn't be hurt at $125 apiece on them.’ Arriving at appellant's home, Strite approached the mother, who said, ‘Roy, for God's sake, do something for me.’ He asked her what was the matter, and who did it, and in appellant's presence she said: ‘You know. Get him away from here.’ Strite asked the appellant to get a comforter, but the appellant, saying that it was not his mother, refused to do so. Another witness, one Almyr Bradway, entered the house with appellant to get a cover. Inside, the appellant started to light a lamp, although it was about noon. The appellant insisted that it was not his mother, and said somebody threw her out of a car. Bradway then got a cover, and it was placed over the mother.

Strite then took appellant up to the cross roads, and, to keep appellant's mind occupied, suggested to him that they hide in the weeds along the road. The appellant said there were no weeds along there, none were there. Appellant stated that if his mother died, he would get a long ‘stretch’ over it, and that the sheriff would get them anyway. The sheriff arrived, and as they entered his automobile and were driving to appellant's home appellant said, ‘I told you they would get us.’ There was conversation concerning the time of day, one witness saying it was ten minutes to three, but the appellant insisting it was ten minutes to two, and it was in fact ten minutes to two.

The sheriff took the appellant to jail without difficulty, and then returned to appellant's home in search of a knife. Finding none, he went back to the jail and found a knife stained with human blood stuck in the top of appellant's boot. Shortly after he was taken to the jail the appellant

[61 N.E.2d 464]

fell asleep, and slept until about eight o'clock that evening.

The evidence discloses the deceased had suffered multiple contusions, lacerations, cuts and stab wounds about the head, neck, face, and body, and had multiple fractures of the ribs on both sides of the chest. She died about 11 o'clock P.M., on November 8, 1943, as the result of said injuries.

The evidence further discloses that the appellant habitually drank intoxicating liquors; that he had been uniformly kind to his mother, and had cared for and supported her. He made a written statement and later testified to the effect that he had drunk heavily of intoxicating liquor on the night of November 6th, and on the morning of November 7th had continued to drink intoxicating liquor, and that he had no recollection of anything that occurred from just before the noon meal until he woke up in jail that evening about eight o'clock.

The evidence is conflicting as to whether the appellant was sane or insane at the time of the commission of the alleged...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 practice notes
  • Adams v. State, No. 369S41
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 19, 1971
    ...note the State was under no duty to introduce evidence of the appellant's Page 428 sanity in its case in chief, Brattain v. State (1945) 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462. However, the State did introduce considerable evidence on the issue of the appellant's sanity. Although the State did [259 In......
  • Flowers v. State, No. 29336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1956
    ...58, 58 N.E.2d 114. Although § 9-1701, Burns' 1956 Replacement, does not provide for a plea of temporary insanity, Brattain v. State, 1945, 223 Ind. 489, 498, 61 N.E.2d 462, it only requires that the plea state the defendant 'was of unsound mind at the time the offense charged was committed.......
  • Kallas v. State, 28469.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 4, 1949
    ...in doing the act, and made the claim that it was done in self defense. The state was not bound to prove motive. Brattain v. State, 1945, 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462. But circumstantial evidence by the state on the question of motive was proper. Hinshaw v. State, 1897, 147 Ind. 334, 47 N.E. ......
  • Carter v. State, No. 2-178A5
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 11, 1980
    ...warranted it, find him guilty of one of the lesser included offenses." Id. at 16-17, 158 N.E.2d at 291. See also Brattain v. State, (1945) 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d The third common thread relates to the quantum of proof necessary in order for the defense to operate. As noted in Greider, 385 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
32 cases
  • Adams v. State, No. 369S41
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 19, 1971
    ...note the State was under no duty to introduce evidence of the appellant's Page 428 sanity in its case in chief, Brattain v. State (1945) 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462. However, the State did introduce considerable evidence on the issue of the appellant's sanity. Although the State did [259 In......
  • Flowers v. State, No. 29336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1956
    ...58, 58 N.E.2d 114. Although § 9-1701, Burns' 1956 Replacement, does not provide for a plea of temporary insanity, Brattain v. State, 1945, 223 Ind. 489, 498, 61 N.E.2d 462, it only requires that the plea state the defendant 'was of unsound mind at the time the offense charged was committed.......
  • Kallas v. State, 28469.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 4, 1949
    ...in doing the act, and made the claim that it was done in self defense. The state was not bound to prove motive. Brattain v. State, 1945, 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462. But circumstantial evidence by the state on the question of motive was proper. Hinshaw v. State, 1897, 147 Ind. 334, 47 N.E. ......
  • Carter v. State, No. 2-178A5
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • August 11, 1980
    ...warranted it, find him guilty of one of the lesser included offenses." Id. at 16-17, 158 N.E.2d at 291. See also Brattain v. State, (1945) 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d The third common thread relates to the quantum of proof necessary in order for the defense to operate. As noted in Greider, 385 ......
  • 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