Brewster v. State
Decision Date | 15 February 1917 |
Docket Number | 23,092 |
Citation | 115 N.E. 54,186 Ind. 369 |
Parties | Brewster v. State of Indiana |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 8, 1917.
From Pike Circuit Court; John L. Bretz, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against William Brewster. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank Ely and J. L. Sumner, for appellant.
Evan B Stotsenburg, Attorney-General, and Thomas H. Branaman, for the State.
Appellant was tried and convicted on an indictment which charges that he and three others, at a time and place fixed, "did then and there unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously unite combine, conspire, confederate and agree to and with each other for the object and purpose, and with the unlawful and felonious intent to then and there unlawfully and feloniously, willfully and maliciously set fire to and burn a certain store building," etc.
In prosecuting this appeal, appellant earnestly insists that the circuit court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial for the reason, among others, that the verdict of the jury is wholly unsupported by the evidence. It must be conceded that some of the evidence which was introduced in behalf of appellant tends to raise serious doubt as to the credibility of certain important witnesses for the State, but that issue has been determined by the verdict of the jury and we are now to consider that evidence on which such verdict must have been based.
It appears from the testimony of the witness Heacock, one of the alleged conspirators, that sometime prior to the attempted burning of the building in question, and during a conversation between witness and appellant, the latter expressed some feeling against the occupant of the place and offered Heacock fifty dollars to burn the store, but he refused to do so. The subject was mentioned on one or two occasions thereafter before witness agreed that he would start the fire if appellant would get one Coleman, another of the alleged conspirators, "to stand good for the money." Heacock asserted that appellant agreed to do this, and that Coleman afterwards said, to quote the witness, that Thereupon, and without the knowledge of appellant, witness employed Harrell, the fourth alleged conspirator, to assist him in committing the act. Some features of this testimony are corroborated by that of other witnesses.
It must be borne in mind that the indictment is based on § 2647 Burns 1914, Acts 1905 p. 584, 742, and charges appellant with conspiracy to commit a felony. The term "criminal conspiracy" is not susceptible of exact definition but in general, has been said to be "a combination of two or more persons, by some concerted action, to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose, or to accomplish some purpose not in itself criminal or unlawful by criminal or unlawful means." 5 R. C. L. 1061, § 1. In another section of the same work, the law governing the proof of such a conspiracy is thus succinctly stated and well sustained by authority: 5 R. C. L. 1088, § 37, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial