Cox v. State , No. 26045.
| Docket Nº | No. 26045. |
| Citation | 177 N.E. 898, 203 Ind. 544 |
| Case Date | October 13, 1931 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
203 Ind. 544
177 N.E. 898
COX
v.
STATE.
No. 26045.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. 13, 1931.
Appeal from Bartholomew Circuit Court; Chas. S. Baker, Judge.
Arthur Cox was convicted of kidnapping, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
[177 N.E. 899]
Montgomery & Montgomery, of Seymour, for appellant.
James M. Ogden, Atty. Gen., and Merle M. Wall, of Indianapolis, for the State.
MARTIN, C. J.
Appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Indiana state prison under the 1929 kidnapping statute, which reads as follows: “Whoever kidnaps, or forcibly or fraudulently carries off or decoys from any place within this state, or arrests or imprisons any person, with the intention of having such person carried away from any place within this state, unless it be in pursuance of the laws of this state or of the United States, is guilty of kidnapping, and, on conviction, shall be imprisoned in the state prison during life.” Section 2426, Burns' 1929 Supp.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and a special answer of insanity, to which a reply in general denial was filed. The trial was by a jury, which returned a verdict of guilty as charged. The alleged error relied upon for reversal is the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, wherein he contends that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence, and is contrary to law.
[1] The evidence of the state is as follows: On Sunday November 23, 1930, about 3:30 p. m. Gloria Jean Huffer, a seven year old girl, was playing with Julia May Aldrich, nine years old, in the yard of the latter's home in the city of Columbus. Appellant picked the Huffer child up in his arms in front of the house near the sidewalk. Immediately she began screaming and crying and kicking terribly to get loose. He forcibly put his hand over her mouth, leaving finger prints on her face and a big red place on her neck, and walked away straight and fast (some witnesses say he ran) with her down an alley. Immediately the Aldrich child screamed, and Mrs. Aldrich, who looked out and saw appellant pass the window, called to her husband, who immediately started in pursuit. Appellant carried the child ninety or ninety-five feet, then dropped her in the alley when Mr. Aldrich “hollowed” at him and started in pursuit, and then ran down the alley to where his automobile was parked. Several other men, who testified, hearing the screams and the alarm joined in the pursuit, blockaded the path of his automobile, and captured appellant. A city...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Wein, Cr. 6130
...defendants forced a woman into their car, drove her from Compton to Torrance, and forced her into a house. (6) Cox v. State, 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 469 determined an asportation of 90 feet was sufficient under a statute not similar to Penal Code section 207. Asportation 'from ......
-
State v. Hampton
...P.2d 821 (1968), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Burchett, 107 Ariz. 185, 484 P.2d 181 (1971); Cox v. State, 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 469 (1932); State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E.2d 216 Defendant urges that his conduct constituted a unitary criminal event, that......
-
People v. Daniels, Cr. 10999
...People v. Cook (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 625, 64 P.2d 449; State v. Taylor (1940) 70 N.D. 201, 293 N.W. 219; Cox v. State (1931) 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 7 CALJIC No. 655 states in relevant part: "Bodily harm,' as that term is used in this instruction, means Substantial bodily injury......
-
Adams v. State, No. 369S41
...a limitation upon all three branches of our State government in treatment of persons being punished. Cox v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 469. It is the infliction or the authorization to inflict 'cruel and unusual punishment' that is prohibited, no matter what the sour......
-
People v. Wein, Cr. 6130
...defendants forced a woman into their car, drove her from Compton to Torrance, and forced her into a house. (6) Cox v. State, 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 469 determined an asportation of 90 feet was sufficient under a statute not similar to Penal Code section 207. Asportation 'from ......
-
State v. Hampton
...P.2d 821 (1968), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Burchett, 107 Ariz. 185, 484 P.2d 181 (1971); Cox v. State, 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 469 (1932); State v. Bruce, 268 N.C. 174, 150 S.E.2d 216 Defendant urges that his conduct constituted a unitary criminal event, that......
-
People v. Daniels, Cr. 10999
...People v. Cook (1937) 18 Cal.App.2d 625, 64 P.2d 449; State v. Taylor (1940) 70 N.D. 201, 293 N.W. 219; Cox v. State (1931) 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 7 CALJIC No. 655 states in relevant part: "Bodily harm,' as that term is used in this instruction, means Substantial bodily i......
-
Adams v. State, No. 369S41
...a limitation upon all three branches of our State government in treatment of persons being punished. Cox v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898, 181 N.E. 469. It is the infliction or the authorization to inflict 'cruel and unusual punishment' that is prohibited, no matter what the sour......
-
Offenses of Violence Against the Person
...39 People v. Chessman, 38 Cal. 2d 166, 238 distance from the P.2d 1001 (1951) ; accord, Cox v. State, 203 vicinity where he is Ind. 544, 177 N.E. 898 (1931) (90 found,&dquo; or confinement &dquo;for a substan- 40 People v. Chessman, supra note 8. An tial period in a place of isolati......