Davidson v. State

Citation34 N.E. 972, 135 Ind. 254
Case DateOctober 13, 1893
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

135 Ind. 254
34 N.E. 972

DAVIDSON
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Oct. 13, 1893.


Appeal from circuit court, Whitley county; J. W. Adair, Judge.

Thomas Davidson, Jr., was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

[34 N.E. 973]


S. M. Hench and C. M. Dawson, for appellant.
A. G. Smith, for the State.

COFFEY, J.

The appellant was indicted in the Allen circuit court on the 7th day of February, 1890, upon a charge of murder in the first degree. Upon his application, the venue of the cause was changed to the Whitley circuit court, where a trial resulted in his conviction. He appeals to this court, and assigns as error: First, that the circuit court erred in overruling his motion to quash the indictment; second, that the circuit court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial.

The indictment in the case is in the usual form, and contains all the allegations usually found in an indictment for murder. The objection urged against it is that it does not allege in what county the deceased died. The supposed defect does not in fact exist. The indictment alleges that the appellant inflicted a mortal wound upon the body of the deceased at Allen county, in this state, at a date named, of which mortal wound he then and there died. This was sufficient. The court did not err in overruling the appellant's motion to quash the indictment. Turpin v. State, 80 Ind. 148;State v. Schultz, 57 Ind. 19.

The evidence in this cause tended to show that Thomas Davidson, Sr., the deceased, at the time of his death was more than 70 years of age, in good health, but somewhat enfeebled by age. He was a widower, without children, and for nearly 20 years had resided alone on a farm in Allen county. In the month of September, 1888, the appellant, an unmarried man, the nephew of the deceased, went to reside with the deceased, who was his uncle. On the 25th day of October, 1888, the deceased executed to the appellant a deed for 80 acres of land, which deed contained an agreement on the part of the appellant to maintain the deceased during the period of his natural life, in consideration of the land so conveyed. In August, 1889, the appellant and the deceased failing to agree, the appellant left his uncle's house, and went to live with one Maddens. The distance from Maddens' to the house of the deceased was about three miles. Soon after the appellant left the house of the deceased, an action was commenced to set aside the deed above mentioned. On the morning of the 25th day of November, 1889, the deceased was found dead in his stable, some distance from his dwelling house. A post–mortem examination disclosed the fact that the deceased had been suffocated, and that his ribs had been broken. The theory of the state upon the trial of the cause was that the deceased had been murdered by the appellant at his dwelling house, and had afterwards been carried to the stable, and deposited near the horses, for the purpose of creating the impression that he had been killed by the horses. The evidence in support of this theory was purely circumstantial. On the trial of the cause the appellant made numerous objections to the admission of evidence upon the ground that it was irrelevant and immaterial, but his objections were overruled. Much of this evidence, when standing alone, would seem to be immaterial, but, when considered in connection with the other facts and circumstances in the case, its relevancy becomes apparent.

For the purpose of supporting the theory of the state, we think it was competent to show what property the deceased owned at the time of his death. As the appellant was one of his heirs, it was competent upon the subject of motive. It is always competent to prove the motive which prompted, or might be supposed to prompt, a murder. Jones v. State, 64 Ind. 473. For this purpose it was also competent to prove the value of such property. It was not error to permit the state to exhibit to the jury the clothing worn by

[34 N.E. 974]

the deceased at the time of his death, and to permit witnesses to testify to the position of the deceased when found. McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320. All clothing worn by the parties concerned, and all materials in any way forming part of the transaction, from which inferences of guilt or innocence may be drawn, may be produced at the trial for the inspection of the jury. Com. v. Brown, 121 Mass. 69;People v. Gonzalez, 35 N. Y. 49;State v. Graham, 74 N. C. 646. In such cases it is the province of the jury to determine what inferences are to be drawn from the condition and appearance of the clothing, in connection with the other evidence in the cause. Story v. State, 99 Ind. 413.

It was competent for the state to prove any declaration made by the appellant tending to show the relations between him and the deceased, and the state of feeling between them; and it was also competent for the state to fully show, in support of its theory, the condition of things at the house of the deceased immediately after the body was found. Goodwin v. State, 96 Ind. 550;Koerner v. State, 98 Ind. 7. So, too, it was proper to prove that the deceased was old and feeble, and that the appellant was young, stout, and vigorous, in support of the theory that the deceased was suffocated by the appellant. 1 Whart. & S. Med. Jur. § 902, pp. 802, 803.

It was not error to admit in evidence the deed executed by the deceased to the appellant, in consideration of which the appellant had agreed to support the deceased during his life. It was competent upon the subject of motive. The objection made by the appellant to the effect that the deed was inadmissible because the acknowledgment was void, having been taken before a notary public who was at the time filling the office of deputy county recorder, is not tenable. The notary was at least an officer de facto, and his acts as to third parties were valid. Leech v. State, 78 Ind. 573;Baker v. Wambaugh, 99 Ind. 312. Generally, an acknowledgment is not essential to the validity of a deed as between the parties to it, but is only necessary in order to admit the deed to record in the proper recorder's office. Hubble v. Wright, 23 Ind. 322; Hays v. Hedges, 79 Ind. 288;Westhafer v. Patterson, 120 Ind. 461, 22 N. E. Rep. 414.

The statements made by the defendant before the coroner at the inquest upon the body of the deceased, having been signed by the appellant, were properly admitted in evidence against him on the trial of this cause, it appearing that he voluntarily testified at such inquest. Snyder v. State, 59 Ind. 105;Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 540, 1 N. E. Rep. 491; Brown v. State, 71 Ind. 470;Sage v. State, 127 Ind. 16, 26 N. E. Rep. 667. In order to admit such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • State v. McClurg, 5622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 25, 1931
    ...v. People, 10 N.Y. 13, 61 Am. Dec. 721; Teachout v. People, 41 N.Y. 7, Woolfolk v. State, 81 Ga. 551, 8 S.E. 724; Davidson v. State, 135 Ind. 254, 34 N.E. 972; Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 539, 1 N.E. 491.) Although, there is authority to the contrary. (Tuttle v. People, 33 Colo. 243, 3 Ann. Cas......
  • Jenkins v. State, 738
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 29, 1913
    ...show the value of the property owned and possessed by the deceased at the time of her death as bearing on the motive. (Davidson v. State, 135 Ind. 254). It was also proper to show that the contract between the deceased and Leffingwell was such as to indicate no motive on the part of the lat......
  • Kiefer v. State, No. 29580
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 18, 1958
    ...of the wounds of the victim, and the condition of the basement immediately after the crime was committed. Cf. Davidson v. State, 1893, 135 Ind. 254, 259, 34 N.E. Third: Was the evidence sufficient to show malice and premeditation? [239 Ind. 109] Malice may be presumed from the intentional u......
  • State v. Pancoast
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 5, 1896
    ...upon which to stand. State v. McGahey, 3 N. D. 293, 55 N. W. 753;State v. La Grange (Iowa) 62 N. W. 664;Davidson v. State (Ind. Sup.) 34 N. E. 972;People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 33 N. E. 65;Com. v. Farrell (Mass.) 36 N. E. 475;Clark v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 26 S. W. 68;Thompson v. State (......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • State v. McClurg, 5622
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • June 25, 1931
    ...v. People, 10 N.Y. 13, 61 Am. Dec. 721; Teachout v. People, 41 N.Y. 7, Woolfolk v. State, 81 Ga. 551, 8 S.E. 724; Davidson v. State, 135 Ind. 254, 34 N.E. 972; Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 539, 1 N.E. 491.) Although, there is authority to the contrary. (Tuttle v. People, 33 Colo. 243, 3 Ann. Cas......
  • Jenkins v. State, 738
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • July 29, 1913
    ...show the value of the property owned and possessed by the deceased at the time of her death as bearing on the motive. (Davidson v. State, 135 Ind. 254). It was also proper to show that the contract between the deceased and Leffingwell was such as to indicate no motive on the part of the lat......
  • Kiefer v. State, No. 29580
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 18, 1958
    ...of the wounds of the victim, and the condition of the basement immediately after the crime was committed. Cf. Davidson v. State, 1893, 135 Ind. 254, 259, 34 N.E. Third: Was the evidence sufficient to show malice and premeditation? [239 Ind. 109] Malice may be presumed from the intentional u......
  • State v. Pancoast
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Dakota
    • June 5, 1896
    ...upon which to stand. State v. McGahey, 3 N. D. 293, 55 N. W. 753;State v. La Grange (Iowa) 62 N. W. 664;Davidson v. State (Ind. Sup.) 34 N. E. 972;People v. Harris, 136 N. Y. 423, 33 N. E. 65;Com. v. Farrell (Mass.) 36 N. E. 475;Clark v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 26 S. W. 68;Thompson v. State (......
  • 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