Carter v. State
| Decision Date | 04 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--473A65,1--473A65 |
| Citation | 301 N.E.2d 524,158 Ind.App. 27 |
| Parties | Robert CARTER, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
James R. Cotner, Bloomington, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Wesley T. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant (Carter) brings this appeal from a conviction following trial by jury for involuntary manslaughter. He argues two allegations of errors: (1) that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment, and (2) that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Carter was charged by indictment in two counts--the first being voluntary manslaughter and the second involuntary manslaughter. Carter's argument on appeal was restricted to the sufficiency of the second count, and we, therefore, narrow our consideration to it only.
Carter's overruled motion to quash challenged the indictment as stating facts not constituting a public offense and as not stating the offense with sufficient certainty. Carter's argument centers on the language in the indictment which charged defendant:
'did . . . kill one Barbara Carter, by then and there beating the said Barbara Carter with a blunt instrument and causing her to be overexposed to the elements, thereby feloniously, but involuntarily, inflicting a wound and overexposer (sic) in and upon the said Barbara Carter, of which wound and overexposer (sic) the said Barbara Carter . . . died . . ..'
As to whether the offense is stated with sufficient certainty, the State contends that the necessary implication from the language of the indictment is that had the victim not been struck she would not have been overexposed. The indictment, the State argues, 'charges that Barbara Carter died as a result of the wound inflicted in the assault and battery upon her and of the overexposure to the elements resulting from such wound.' The State's argument must fail because nothing can be charged by implication. Hewitt v. State (1908), 171 Ind. 283, 86 N.E. 63. This argument by the State serves to further illustrate the deficiency in the indictment. No explanation is offered by the State as to how a wound can result in an overexposure to the elements. This interpretation given the indictment by the State varies with what to us seems a more rational interpretation--that Barbara Carter died as a combined result of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merry v. State
...information or indictment substantially complies with the statute. Dorsey v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 409, 260 N.E.2d 800; Carter v. State (1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 524; Noel v. State (1973), Ind.App., 300 N.E.2d 132. As we stated in Layne v. State (1975), Ind.App., 329 N.E.2d 'Affidavits ......
-
Doyle v. State
...of the "alter ego" doctrine, he would be held personally accountable. Nothing can be charged by implication. Carter v. State, (1973) 158 Ind.App. 27, 301 N.E.2d 524. A person cannot incur the loss of liberty for an offense without notice and a meaningful opportunity to defend. McGairk v. St......
-
Indiana Bd. of Pharmacy v. Crick
...The Board also failed to note that the Criminal Code violations were incorporated into Rule 20.6 The Board cites Carter v. State, (1973) 158 Ind.App. 27, 301 N.E.2d 524 to support its argument that notice was sufficient. However, Carter states that nothing can be charged by implication. Id.......
-
Moran v. State
...must state the crime charged in direct and unmistakable terms. Garcia v. State (1982), Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 1207; Carter v. State (1973), 158 Ind.App. 27, 301 N.E.2d 524. Any reasonable doubt as to the offense charged must be resolved in favor of the accused. Garcia at We believe all four c......