Brown v. State
| Decision Date | 13 May 1915 |
| Docket Number | 22,618 |
| Citation | 108 N.E. 861,184 Ind. 254 |
| Parties | Brown v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied January 13, 1916, Reported at: 184 Ind. 254 at 258.
From Grant Circuit Court; H. J. Paulus, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against William Webster Brown. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Condo & Browne, Luther F. Pence and Kittinger & Diven, for appellant.
Thomas M. Honan and Thomas H. Branaman, for the State.
This is a prosecution by the State of Indiana against appellant who was indicted jointly with his son for murder in the first degree. The indictment is in three counts, each charging appellant and son with the crime of murder in the killing of one Hawkins. A separate trial was demanded and the State chose to try appellant first. This trial resulted in a conviction of voluntary manslaughter, and the punishment fixed at imprisonment in the State prison not less than two nor more than twenty-one years.
The appellant presents but one assignment of error, viz., the overruling of his motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial contains thirty-six alleged causes why a new trial should be granted which arise upon the ruling of the court in admitting certain evidence tendered by the State, excluding certain evidence offered by the appellant, the giving of certain instructions, and the refusal to give certain instructions tendered by appellant. Many of the alleged errors are waived by appellant for failure to discuss them in his brief. The errors alleged and not waived are, (a) the verdict of the jury is contrary to law, (b) the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence, (c) the admission of improper evidence, (d) the exclusion of evidence tendered by appellant, (e) the giving of instructions Nos. 8, 58, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66, 83, 88.
While there is sharp conflict in the evidence in the case on many material issues, we are of the opinion that there is sufficient evidence to support the verdict if believed by the jury. A matter which is for the jury to determine and its right to believe or disbelieve a witness is for its determination, and can not be reviewed by this court. Stolte v. State (1888), 115 Ind. 128, 17 N.E. 258; Indiana R. Co. v. Wadsworth (1902), 29 Ind.App. 586, 64 N.E. 938. Only questions of law will be reviewed by this court, and it is only where there is no evidence to support the verdict that any question of law is presented and this is true whether the conviction rests upon circumstantial or direct evidence, or both. Thain v. State (1914), 182 Ind. 345, 106 N.E. 690.
The alleged error in the admission of certain testimony given by the witness, John W. Higgs, is based upon a conversation had between said witness and one Picket in the absence of the defendant, which related to some information witness received about the tragedy immediately after Hawkins was killed. On cross-examination of this witness by the attorney for appellant, he was asked if he did not have a conversation with Picket in which it was asked if Picket had not said certain things to him, the witness, and that if in answer to said statement of Picket, he, the witness, had not made certain statements. It is contended by appellant that the questions propounded to witness were for the purpose of laying the foundation for the impeachment of the witness Higgs, and that an explanation of what was said, or the connection in which it was said was not competent, until the defense...
To continue reading
Request your trial