Christ v. State , 23901.

• Decision Date: 29 June 1921
• Docket Number: No. 23901.,23901.
• Citation: 131 N.E. 820,191 Ind. 56
• Parties: CHRIST v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

191 Ind. 56

131 N.E. 820

CHRIST

v.STATE.

No. 23901.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 29, 1921.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Allen County; Sol. A. Wood, Judge.

Paul Christ was convicted of receiving stolen property, and he appeals. Reversed, with instructions to sustain motion for new trial.

Ryan, Ryan & Aldrich, of Ft. Wayne, for appellant.

U. S. Lesh and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, both of Indianapolis, for the State.

TOWNSEND, C. J.

Appellant was charged and convicted of the crime of receiving stolen property “at the County of Allen, in the state of Indiana.”

The sole question presented arises on the motion for a new trial, and is, Does the evidence sustain the venue?

The evidence shows that the property was taken from the Nickel Plate Railroad at New Haven; that the goods were found at the place of business of appellant on La Fayette street; that some of the stolen property was also found at 812 Buchanan street.

[1][2][3] Whether the very streets referred to are in Allen county, Ind., cannot be told. Of course the trial took place at the city of Ft. Wayne. Nowhere in the evidence is any language used like “this city,” “this county,” “this state,” “Ft. Wayne,” “Allen county,” from which the court or jury would have the right to infer that the crime was committed at the place charged. Williams v. State, 168 Ind. 87, 92, 79 N. E. 1079. Of course this court would judicially know that Ft. Wayne is in Allen county. So the trial court would judicially know that New Haven is in Allen county. New Haven was the place where the property was stolen, but there is nothing to show the venue as to the specific crime charged; that is, where the property was received.

In Harlan v. State, 134 Ind. 339, at page 341, 33 N. E. 1102, at page 1102, this court said:

“It may not be necessary to prove venue by direct questions and answers showing in what county and state the felony was committed, but there must be some evidence tending to support such fact, and from which the fact may be found.”

In the instant case we have simply the names of streets where witnesses reside. Even the police officers who testified do not say where they are from. It would therefore seem that the case comes squarely within the rule laid down in Harlan v. State, supra. See, also, Strickland v. State, 171 Ind. 642, 645, 87 N. E. 12, and cases there cited.

The state relies upon Cluck v. State, 40 Ind. 263, but an examination of this case discloses that the evidence showed that the...