Dickinson v. State, No. 27968.

Docket NºNo. 27968.
Citation55 N.E.2d 325, 222 Ind. 551
Case DateJune 14, 1944
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

222 Ind. 551
55 N.E.2d 325

DICKINSON
v.
STATE.

No. 27968.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 14, 1944.


William B. Dickinson was convicted of second-degree murder, and he appeals.

Reversed with instructions.

[55 N.E.2d 325]

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court; Grant Rogers, Judge.
Elmon M. Williams, of Indianapolis, for appellant.

James A. Emmert, Atty. Gen., and Frank Hamilton and Frank E. Coughlin, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.


O'MALLEY, Judge.

The appellant was indicted on a charge of murder in the first degree, predicated upon the death of the appellant's wife by gunshot wounds. The appellant pleaded not guilty and also filed a plea of insanity. He was tried and found guilty of murder in the second degree, and thereafter was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for life. In due time he filed his motion for a new trial, which motion was overruled, and an appeal prayed and perfected.

The overruling of the motion for a new trial is assigned as error, and the only

[55 N.E.2d 326]

questions stressed in this court are: 1. That the Johnson Circuit Court erred in refusing to permit the witness Lyman Dragoo to state to the jury, what he had heard the appellant say on the night of the crime. This statement was to a person other than the decedent, and merely stated that the other person should reserve an ‘alley’ (bowling alley) and that appellant would go out and get some food and return a little later. 2. That the court refused to permit the appellant to give the conversation had with his wife at the bowling alley where he worked, just prior to the time that the wife left the bowling alley and went to the filling station, where the alleged crime was committed. The offer to prove under this claim of error was that the appellant said “Dorothy, I want to give you some money for the support of Roy Lee and talk to you about my seeing him over Sunday,' and that she replied, ‘I don't want to talk to you in here. See me outside. When I leave you can meet me down the street.” 3. That the court refused to permit the conversation had at or about the time that the shots were fired, which conversation as offered was as follows: “Dorothy I want to talk to you about our matter.’ He said, ‘I have talked to an attorney’ and she replied, ‘Yes, I understand you have, Bill.’ He said, ‘My attorney has told me I ought to pay you $4.00 per week for Roy Lee and since Sunday is my Sunday off, I would like to have Roy Lee, Sunday.’ And she replied, ‘You can't have him.’ And he replied, ‘Now, Dorothy, let's talk this matter over as sensible people. Why don't you come over to my room and let's talk the matter over.’ And she replied, ‘You are trying to frame me so I can't get my divorce.’ And the witness replied, ‘Dorothy, you don't think you married a man like that, do you?”

On the 17th of December, 1942, at about 9:40 P.M., the death of the wife took place at a filling station which was located about a block from the bowling alley where the appellant was employed. At this time the appellant and his wife were separated, and were parties to a divorce proceeding then pending in the Johnson Circuit Court. The evidence shows that the decedent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • McCormick v. State, No. 1280S449
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 30, 1982
    ...evidence may reveal the accused's state of mind. E.g., Choctaw v. State, (1979) Ind., 387 N.E.2d 1305, 1307; Dickinson v. State, (1944) 222 Ind. 551, 556, 55 N.E.2d 325, Defendant's actions and statements demonstrated a pattern of hostility between himself and the victim on the day of the c......
  • Shutt v. State, No. 1076S358
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 21, 1977
    ...143 N.E.2d 99; Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d 455. However, such inference may be rebutted. Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 55 N.E.2d 325; Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 171 N.E. We believe the facts of this case can only justify a conviction for voluntar......
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 30, 1968
    ...of: 1. The killing of a human being. 2. The accompaniment of such killing with purpose and malice. See: Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 55 N.E.2d 325; Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 171 N.E. 192, 72 A.L.R. 891; Brooks v. State (1883), 90 Ind. Concerning the first element, ......
  • Miller v. State, No. 30100
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 11, 1962
    ...as likely to cause death.' See also: Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 697, 171 N.E. 192, 72 A.L.R. 891; Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 555, 55 N.E.2d 325; Stice v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 144, 150, 89 N.E.2d 915; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523, 526, 112 N.E.2d 439; Myles ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • McCormick v. State, No. 1280S449
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 30, 1982
    ...evidence may reveal the accused's state of mind. E.g., Choctaw v. State, (1979) Ind., 387 N.E.2d 1305, 1307; Dickinson v. State, (1944) 222 Ind. 551, 556, 55 N.E.2d 325, Defendant's actions and statements demonstrated a pattern of hostility between himself and the victim on the day of the c......
  • Shutt v. State, No. 1076S358
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 21, 1977
    ...143 N.E.2d 99; Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d 455. However, such inference may be rebutted. Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 55 N.E.2d 325; Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 171 N.E. We believe the facts of this case can only justify a conviction for voluntar......
  • Helms v. State, No. 31140
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 30, 1968
    ...of: 1. The killing of a human being. 2. The accompaniment of such killing with purpose and malice. See: Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 55 N.E.2d 325; Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 171 N.E. 192, 72 A.L.R. 891; Brooks v. State (1883), 90 Ind. Concerning the first element, ......
  • Miller v. State, No. 30100
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 11, 1962
    ...as likely to cause death.' See also: Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 697, 171 N.E. 192, 72 A.L.R. 891; Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 555, 55 N.E.2d 325; Stice v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 144, 150, 89 N.E.2d 915; May v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 523, 526, 112 N.E.2d 439; Myles ......
  • 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