Chambers v. State, No. 28951

Docket NºNo. 28951
Citation111 N.E.2d 816, 232 Ind. 349
Case DateMay 01, 1953
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 816

111 N.E.2d 816
232 Ind. 349
CHAMBERS

v.
STATE.
No. 28951.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 1, 1953.

[232 Ind. 350] Jess B. Fields, Bloomington, for appellant.

J. Emmett McManamon, former Atty. Gen., William T. McClain, Deputy Atty. Gen., Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

BOBBITT, Judge.

Appellant was charged by affidavit under Acts 1927, ch. 203, § 2, p. 580, being § 10-401, Burns' 1942 Replacement, with assault and battery with intent to commit a felony, was tried by jury, found guilty as charged, and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for a period of one to ten years.

The sole error here assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial.

[232 Ind. 351] Fourteen specifications or grounds therefor are assigned.

Appellant has voluntarily waived specifications 2, 9, 10 and 11, and we shall consider the others in their regular order.

First: Appellant asserts, by specifications 1 and 3, that the verdict of the jury is not supported by sufficient evidence, and that it is contrary to law because a reasonable doubt exists as to his guilt, and urges us to review the evidence 'to determine this fact.'

We are asked by appellant to weigh the evidence which here is in conflict, to determine the question of 'reasonable doubt.'

Whether the testimony of appellant was sufficient to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury was a question for their determination, and if there is evidence of probative value from which the jury could have found or from which it might have properly inferred, that appellant was guilty as charged, their verdict will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appellant relies upon Batterson v. State, 1878, 63 Ind. 531, and Martin v. State, 1867, 28 Ind. 310, which hold that where this court is satisfied from the evidence that a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the defendant exists a judgment of conviction

Page 817

will be reversed. The rule in these cases has not been followed in the later decisions of this court.

In Deal v. State, 1895, 140 Ind. 354, 358, 39 N.E. 930, Judge McCabe, speaking for this court, ably stated the reasons for the settled rule that this court will not weigh evidence. We think it might be well, in view of the question here raised, to restate such reasons as they appear at page 358 of 140 Ind., at page 931 of 39 N.E., as follows:

'The reason most frequently given in the decisions of this court for the rule that this court cannot[232 Ind. 352] weight the evidence, and therefore cannot reverse for the reason that the preponderance of the evidence seems to be against the finding or verdict, is that the opportunities and means of the court and jury trying the cause are so vastly superior to those of this court--they being able to see the witnesses face to face, to observe their conduct, appearance, and demeanor on the witness stand, and thus judging of their intelligence, fairness, and candor, and many other means of weighing evidence that this court cannot have--that it is deemed safer to leave that duty to be performed exclusively by them. But the sounder and more substantial reason is that the legislature has expressly limited the jurisdiction of this court on appeal to the correction of errors of law.' 1

If there is no evidence in the record here before us to support the verdict, or if there is no evidence from which proper inferences might have been drawn to support the verdict, then it is contrary to law. However, such is not the situation.

There is sufficient evidence in the record from which the jury might have found that Paul Mullis, the prosecuting witness was visiting his half-brother in Bloomington, Indiana, on January 12, 1952; that his sister and her husband came to the house about 9:30 P.M.; that Mullis drank beer with his half-brother and the others present and watched television until 12 o'clock when he went outside the house to an outdoor toilet which was about 40 feet from the entrance to the house.

That Mullis went out the front door and as he turned the corner of the house he saw a man standing about half-way between the house and the toilet. Mullis said: 'Hello' and asked the man what he was doing, and he [232 Ind. 353] answered that he was taking a walk. Mullis then said that it was a funny place to be taking a walk. When they were about 6 feet apart the man drew a knife from his pocket and stabbed Mullis in the stomach and knocked him over against the house. Mullis, knowing he had a knife, attempted to jump on...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Baker v. State, No. 29297
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1956
    ...most important interests, under circumstances where there was no compulsion or coercion upon him to act at all. Chambers v. State, 1953, 232 Ind. 349, Page 645 356, 111 N.E.2d 816; Morgan v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Bradley v. State, 1870, 31 Ind. 492. The standard of a prud......
  • Ashton v. Anderson, No. 272S22
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 28, 1972
    ...Bolden v. State, 1927, 199 Ind. 160, 163, 155 N.E. 824; Way v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 280, 284, 66 N.E.2d 608; Chambers v. State, 1946, 232 Ind. 349, 111 N.E.2d 816; Mitz, Jr. v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 537, 543, 121 N.E.2d 'In the Neal v. State case, supra, it was held that it rested within t......
  • Peckham v. Smith, No. 18993
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 23, 1960
    ...355; Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Nielsen et ux., 1952, 123 Ind.App. 199, 109 N.E.2d 442; Chambers v. State of Indiana, 1953, 232 Ind. 349, 111 N.E.2d 816; Hinds, [130 Ind.App. 462] Executor of Estate of Sickles, Deceased v. McNair, et al., 1955, 235 Ind. 34, 129 N.E.2d Instructio......
  • Brown v. State, No. 376S75
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 16, 1977
    ...at all. Easton v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 338, 228 N.E.2d 6; Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55, 138 N.E.2d 641; Chambers v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 349, 111 N.E.2d The Appellant's tendered instruction was patterned after this language. We are not Page 836 persuaded, however, that the omissio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Baker v. State, No. 29297
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1956
    ...most important interests, under circumstances where there was no compulsion or coercion upon him to act at all. Chambers v. State, 1953, 232 Ind. 349, Page 645 356, 111 N.E.2d 816; Morgan v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Bradley v. State, 1870, 31 Ind. 492. The standard of a prud......
  • Ashton v. Anderson, No. 272S22
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 28, 1972
    ...Bolden v. State, 1927, 199 Ind. 160, 163, 155 N.E. 824; Way v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 280, 284, 66 N.E.2d 608; Chambers v. State, 1946, 232 Ind. 349, 111 N.E.2d 816; Mitz, Jr. v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 537, 543, 121 N.E.2d 'In the Neal v. State case, supra, it was held that it rested within t......
  • Peckham v. Smith, No. 18993
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 23, 1960
    ...355; Northern Indiana Public Service Co. v. Nielsen et ux., 1952, 123 Ind.App. 199, 109 N.E.2d 442; Chambers v. State of Indiana, 1953, 232 Ind. 349, 111 N.E.2d 816; Hinds, [130 Ind.App. 462] Executor of Estate of Sickles, Deceased v. McNair, et al., 1955, 235 Ind. 34, 129 N.E.2d Instructio......
  • Brown v. State, No. 376S75
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 16, 1977
    ...at all. Easton v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 338, 228 N.E.2d 6; Baker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 55, 138 N.E.2d 641; Chambers v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 349, 111 N.E.2d The Appellant's tendered instruction was patterned after this language. We are not Page 836 persuaded, however, that the omissio......
  • 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