Cross v. State
| Decision Date | 24 May 1892 |
| Docket Number | 16,514 |
| Citation | 31 N.E. 473,132 Ind. 65 |
| Parties | Cross v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Huntington Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, with instructions to grant a new trial and for the necessary order to return the prisoner.
C. W Watkins and J. C. Branyan, for appellant.
W. A Branyan, Prosecuting Attorney, and M. L. Spencer, for the State.
The first count in the information in this cause charges the appellant with an assault and battery upon one Elizabeth Adams, with the felonious intent to commit the crime of rape; and the second count charges him with the crime of rape upon the same person.
A trial of the cause by a jury resulted in a verdict of guilty, fixing his punishment in the "penitentiary" for the period of twelve years, upon which the court, over a motion for a new trial, rendered judgment.
Numerous alleged errors are assigned in this court, upon which a reversal of the judgment of the circuit court is sought.
The circuit court did not err in refusing to permit the appellant to defend as a poor person. His examination, in open court, disclosed the fact that he was not a pauper. He possessed means with which to employ counsel for his defense, and there being no necessity for it, he should not have been permitted to defend at the expense of the public treasury.
The objection that the jury fixed the punishment of the appellant at imprisonment in the "penitentiary" instead of the State prison is an objection of a technical character for which we are forbidden by statute to reverse judgment.
Nor is the appellant in a condition to complain of the testimony of witnesses relating to conversations with the prosecuting witness soon after the alleged crime, inasmuch as such conversations were struck out by the court and wholly withdrawn from the jury. It was proper to prove that she made complaint soon after the occurrence, as corroborative of her testimony, but it was not proper to permit the witnesses to give a detailed statement of what she said. The proper practice in such cases is indicated in the case of Thompson v. State, 38 Ind. 39.
It was assigned as a reason for a new trial that the circuit court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury at the request of the State and over the objections of the appellant, and also in modifying certain instructions asked by the appellant.
There is a total absence from the record of any instruction defining a reasonable doubt. As the court gave general instructions, however, upon the subject of reasonable doubt, if the instructions given were free from error, we would not reverse the judgment for this reason, as the appellant did not ask any special instructions of this character. While there are no instructions defining reasonable doubt, there are several found in the record informing the jury as to what does not amount to a reasonable doubt. It is of these instructions that the appellant complains.
As instructions are not to be construed in detached portions, but, on the contrary, are to be construed together, it is necessary that we should group those bearing upon the subject under investigation. So much of the instructions as undertake to inform the jury what does not constitute a reasonable doubt are as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. State
... ... require instructions stretched to the utmost; but they should ... not be followed in ordinary cases and cannot be accepted with ... safety. The instruction complained of has been condemned in ... several cases. ( People v. Johnson, 140 N.Y. 350; ... Siberry v. State, 133 Ind. 677; Cross v ... State, 132 Ind. 65.) The instruction in question omits ... the element contained in the instruction in the Spies case ... that the belief of the jury is to be based upon the evidence ... in the case. At the best the instruction is misleading. It ... undertakes to tell the jury what ... ...
-
Highley v. People
...evidence,' was condemned in People v. Johnson, 140 N.Y. 350, 35 N.E. 604, Siberry v. State, 133 Ind. 677, 33 N.E. 681, and Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65, 31 N.E. 473. criticism which we offer to it with the words 'from the evidence' omitted is that it tells each juror that he is not at libert......
-
Shular v. The State
...in response thereto were proper, and neither afford the accused any grounds for complaint. Thompson v. State, 38 Ind. 39; Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65, 31 N.E. 473; Polson v. State, 137 Ind. 519, 35 N.E. It is next insisted that the court committed an error in giving instruction number six t......
-
Cross v. The State
...A trial of the cause resulted in a conviction of the appellant, which judgment of conviction was reversed by this court. Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65, 31 N.E. 473. Upon return of the cause to the Huntington Circuit Court, the appellant procured a change of venue, and the cause was sent to th......