Cross v. State

Citation31 N.E. 473, 132 Ind. 65
Case DateMay 24, 1892
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

132 Ind. 65
31 N.E. 473

Cross
v.
State.1

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 24, 1892.


Appeal from circuit court, Huntington county; W. H. Trammel, Special Judge.

John Cross was convicted of the crime of rape, and appeals. Reversed.


C. W. Watkins, for appellant. Wm. H. Branyan, for the State.

COFFEY, J.

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 12 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 a judgment. Nor is the appellant in position 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witness soon after the alleged crime, inasmuch as such conversations were struck out by the court, and wholly withdrawn from the jury.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 instruction 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 as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 10 Enero 1910
    ...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......
  • Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico, 3,617.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 21 Octubre 1912
    ...N.E. 681, 684, Avery v. State, 124 Ala. 20, 21, 22, 27 So. 505, 506, Morgan v. State, 48 Ohio St. 371, 27 N.E. 710, 712, Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65, 31 N.E. 473, 474, Cowan v. State, 22 Neb. 519, 35 N.W. 405, Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749, 37 N.W. 630, State v. Cohen, 108 Iowa, 208, 78 N.W. 8......
  • State v. Williams, No. 28660.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 25 Mayo 1928
    ...the court to appoint counsel for him. Sec. 3957, R.S. 1919; State v. Terry, 201 Mo. 697; State v. Moore, 151 Mo. 514; Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65; Hendryx v. State, 130 Ind. 265; Com. v. Mattern, 26 Pa. Dist. 777; People v. Cook, 45 Hun, 34; People v. Thompson, 199 N.Y. Supp. 368. (2) The d......
  • Woods v. State, No. 29092
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 20 Mayo 1954
    ...in the case, it is wholly inadmissible.' [233 Ind. 327] The rules announced in this case have been followed in Cross v. State, 1892, 132 Ind. 65, 31 N.E. 473; Polson v. State, 1893, 137 Ind. 519, 35 N.E. 907; Kelley v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 148, 78 N.E.2d 547. Other asserted errors are not ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Robinson v. State, 609
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • 10 Enero 1910
    ...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......
  • Pettine v. Territory of New Mexico, 3,617.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 21 Octubre 1912
    ...N.E. 681, 684, Avery v. State, 124 Ala. 20, 21, 22, 27 So. 505, 506, Morgan v. State, 48 Ohio St. 371, 27 N.E. 710, 712, Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65, 31 N.E. 473, 474, Cowan v. State, 22 Neb. 519, 35 N.W. 405, Carr v. State, 23 Neb. 749, 37 N.W. 630, State v. Cohen, 108 Iowa, 208, 78 N.W. 8......
  • State v. Williams, No. 28660.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 25 Mayo 1928
    ...the court to appoint counsel for him. Sec. 3957, R.S. 1919; State v. Terry, 201 Mo. 697; State v. Moore, 151 Mo. 514; Cross v. State, 132 Ind. 65; Hendryx v. State, 130 Ind. 265; Com. v. Mattern, 26 Pa. Dist. 777; People v. Cook, 45 Hun, 34; People v. Thompson, 199 N.Y. Supp. 368. (2) The d......
  • Woods v. State, No. 29092
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 20 Mayo 1954
    ...in the case, it is wholly inadmissible.' [233 Ind. 327] The rules announced in this case have been followed in Cross v. State, 1892, 132 Ind. 65, 31 N.E. 473; Polson v. State, 1893, 137 Ind. 519, 35 N.E. 907; Kelley v. State, 1948, 226 Ind. 148, 78 N.E.2d 547. Other asserted errors are not ......
  • 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