Burton v. State, 29595
| Citation | 148 N.E.2d 838,238 Ind. 107 |
| Decision Date | 26 March 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29595,29595 |
| Parties | Archie BURTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Ferdinand Samper, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Harriette Bailey Conn, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of Marion County upon a finding appellant was guilty of robbery while armed, for which he was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for 10 years. The error assigned here is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial. The motion for a new trial challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding of guilty.
Appellant filed a special plea of insanity under § 9-1701, Burns' 1956 Replacement, and the insanity issue is the only one argued on appeal.
Where an accused files a special plea that he was of unsound mind at the time the offense charged was committed, and there is a conflict of evidence on this issue, the State is required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was of sound mind at the time the offense was committed. Walters v. State, 1915, 185 Ind. 178, 108 N.E. 583; McHargue v. State, 1923, 193 Ind. 204, 139 N.E. 316; Noelke v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 427, 432, 15 N.E.2d 950. If such special plea has been filed and there has been some evidence upon this question, the State then must prove:
'1. That the accused could know and comprehend the nature and consequences of his act. The nature of the act embraces knowledge on his part that the act was wrong, for if the accused be unable to distinguish right from wrong he would not know the nature of his act.
'2. That the accused had sufficient will power to control his impulse to commit the act charged.
'If the State fails to prove either requirement beyond a reasonable doubt there has been a failure of proof on this issue.' Flowers v. State, Inc., 1956, 139 N.E.2d 185, 193.
After a conviction this court does not weight the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses, but rather considers only that evidence most favorable to the State and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom to determine whether there was a failure of proof. Kallas v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 103, 83 N.E.2d 769; Todd v. State, 1951, 230 Ind. 85, 101 N.E.2d 922; Coppenhaver v. State, 1903, 160 Ind. 540, 67 N.E. 453.
In this cause the court appointed two physicians to examine the defendant. Dr. Roger Smith of Indianapolis, a specialist in mental and nervous diseases for 35 years, testified on direct examination that in his opinion on the date of the crime, 'He was of sound mind.' On cross-examination Dr. Smith was asked, 'Could it be possible that on January 18, 1957,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 29661
...jury's finding that he was a person of sound mind. We have no right to disturb a jury's finding when supported by evidence. Burton v. State, Ind.1958, 148 N.E.2d 838; Jackson v. State, Ind.1958, 151 N.E.2d Items 1 and 2 of the motion for a new trial contend that the verdict of the jury is n......
-
Lenovich v. State, 29498
...the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that appellant was of sound mind at the time the offense was committed. Burton v. State, Ind. 1958, 148 N.E.2d 838. Four physicians examined appellant and testified as to his mental condition. In support of the verdict, Dr. Carl Fisher testified:......