Crickmore v. State, No. 26910.

Docket NºNo. 26910.
Citation213 Ind. 586, 12 N.E.2d 266
Case DateJanuary 18, 1938
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

213 Ind. 586
12 N.E.2d 266

CRICKMORE
v.
STATE.

No. 26910.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 18, 1938.


Victor Crickmore was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he appeals.

Affirmed.

[12 N.E.2d 267]

Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Adolph Schieber, Special judge.
Jesse W. Peden, Clyde C. Karrer, and Alexander Baker, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Omer Stokes Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Patrick J. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.


FANSLER, Judge.

Appellant, together with Harry Peats, Emmett Williams, and Gerald Haygood, was indicted for murder. The indictment is the same under which Harry Peats, appellant in Peats v. State, 12 N.E.2d 270, decided at this term, was convicted. Appellant in this case was convicted of voluntary manslaughter at a separate trial.

The errors assigned and presented are that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial, and in overruling his motion to quash the indictment.

As to the sufficiency of the indictment against a motion to quash, nothing need be added to what has been said in the Peats Case. The indictment is sufficient.

The evidence for the State is substantially the same as in the Peats Case. In addition, there was the testimony of a police officer that Crickmore had made a statement to him in all substantial respects conforming to Haygood's testimony. He testified that Crickmore told him that he had been hired ‘to go out and rock trucks of non-Union men.’ There was also the testimony of Haygood and two women that Crickmore was in the car with them, and threw ‘rocks' through the windshield of the car in which Penny was riding. Appellant's defense was an alibi. He testified that he was not present when the offense was committed; that he was elsewhere.

He complains of the admission of evidence of other crimes. The evidence complained of was substantially the same as that described in the Peats Case. A prima facie case was made, showing that he was a party to a conspiracy or a plan to systematically stone trucks driven by nonunion drivers. The evidence was competent.

Complaint is also made of the admission of testimony concerning the surroundings at the place where the offense was committed, and of the admission of photographs for the purpose of showing the condition of the truck before and after the stones were thrown. We are not impressed with the objections to this testimony, but at most it only tended to prove that stones were thrown, and that one of them inflicted the injury upon Penny from which he died. By his defense, appellant made no contention that Penny had not been killed in the manner charged. His defense was that he had no part in the transaction, and that he was elsewhere. It follows that, even if the evidence had been improperly admitted, it could not prejudice appellant's rights.

One of the causes assigned in the motion for a new trial is that the verdict and judgment are not supported by the evidence. As we understand appellant's contention, it is that, although the intentional and premeditated throwing of stones from an automobile, running at 70 miles an hour, into the windshield of an approaching truck, if such an act is reasonably calculated to produce death, is sufficient evidence of an intention to kill, it is also sufficient to establish premeditation and malice; that, if the jury believed there was an intention to kill, their verdict should have been for murder, and not manslaughter; that, since the verdict was for the lower offense, the

[12 N.E.2d 268]

jury must have assumed that appellant only intended the unlawful act, consisting of throwing the stones, and that the verdict should have been for involuntary manslaughter. It is difficult to understand how the jury concluded that appellant was guilty of voluntary manslaughter, which implies an intentional killing, since it is clear from the evidence that, if he intended to kill, it was a planned and premeditated killing, which would be murder in the first degree, whereas, if the killing had been unintentional, and only the unlawful act of throwing the deadly missiles had been intentional, it would have been involuntary manslaughter. But it will be seen that the objection to the evidence supporting the verdict is that it is too much, and not that it is too little. In Hasenfuss v. State, 1901, 156 Ind. 246, 252, 59 N.E. 463, 466, it was insisted that no set of circumstances could be imagined which would render it possible to reduce the crime of murder, by means of poison deliberately administered, to that of voluntary manslaughter. The court said: ‘It is possibly true, as insisted by counsel for appellant, that it may be difficult to conjecture a case where the crime of manslaughter can be said to be committed by means of administering poison. Be this at it may, the question here involved relates solely to the right or power of the jury, and, when that right or power is once found to exist, the question may be said to be closed. It appears, however, that the jury in the case at bar discovered such a case notwithstanding the assertion of counsel that none, under any circumstances, can be imagined. The evidence is not before us, and hence we are not advised as to its character. The jury, for aught appearing, may possibly have been controlled, as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 practice notes
  • Hutcheson v. United States, No. 46
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1962
    ...also have been so used, at least to impeach petitioner's testimony had he taken the stand at the state trial (see Crickmore v. State, 213 Ind. 586, 592—593, 12 N.E.2d 266, 269). The contention respecting Indiana's future use of incriminatory answers at once encounters an obstacle in Hale v.......
  • Madison v. State, No. 29188
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 4, 1955
    ...of murder in the second degree and manslaughter. Section 9-1115, Burns' 1942 Replacement. 5 [234 Ind. 536] In Crickmore v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 586, 12 N.E.2d 266, Peats v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 560, 12 N.E.2d 270, and Hicks v. State, 1937, 213 Ind. 277, 11 N.E.2d 171, 12 N.E.2d 501, this ......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 2-1072A80
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 15, 1974
    ...that the jury . . . discovered such a case.' (Id. at 252, 59 N.E. at 466.) The judgment was affirmed. In Crickmore v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 586, 12 N.E.2d 266, defendant was a union truck driver who, with others 9, was indicted for the first degree murder of a nonunion driver who was kille......
  • O'Conner v. State, No. 2-378A99
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 29, 1978
    ...notwithstanding the absence of proof of 'sudden heat'. (citations omitted) McDonald at 574; See also Crickmore v. State, (1938) 213 Ind. 586, 12 N.E.2d 266, 268; Hasenfuss v. State, (1901) 156 Ind. 246, 59 N.E. 463, 466; Fleetwood v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 343 N.E.2d 812, 815; Landers v. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Hutcheson v. United States, No. 46
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • May 14, 1962
    ...also have been so used, at least to impeach petitioner's testimony had he taken the stand at the state trial (see Crickmore v. State, 213 Ind. 586, 592—593, 12 N.E.2d 266, 269). The contention respecting Indiana's future use of incriminatory answers at once encounters an obstacle in Hale v.......
  • Madison v. State, No. 29188
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 4, 1955
    ...of murder in the second degree and manslaughter. Section 9-1115, Burns' 1942 Replacement. 5 [234 Ind. 536] In Crickmore v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 586, 12 N.E.2d 266, Peats v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 560, 12 N.E.2d 270, and Hicks v. State, 1937, 213 Ind. 277, 11 N.E.2d 171, 12 N.E.2d 501, this ......
  • Robinson v. State, No. 2-1072A80
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 15, 1974
    ...that the jury . . . discovered such a case.' (Id. at 252, 59 N.E. at 466.) The judgment was affirmed. In Crickmore v. State (1938), 213 Ind. 586, 12 N.E.2d 266, defendant was a union truck driver who, with others 9, was indicted for the first degree murder of a nonunion driver who was kille......
  • O'Conner v. State, No. 2-378A99
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 29, 1978
    ...notwithstanding the absence of proof of 'sudden heat'. (citations omitted) McDonald at 574; See also Crickmore v. State, (1938) 213 Ind. 586, 12 N.E.2d 266, 268; Hasenfuss v. State, (1901) 156 Ind. 246, 59 N.E. 463, 466; Fleetwood v. State, (1976) Ind.App., 343 N.E.2d 812, 815; Landers v. S......
  • 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