Freese v. State

Citation159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915
Case DateJanuary 07, 1903
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

159 Ind. 597
65 N.E. 915

FREESE
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 7, 1903.


Appeal from circuit court, Shelby county; Douglas Morris, Judge.

Myra Freese was convicted of murder in the second degree, and appeals. Affirmed.


L. E. Ritchey, for appellant. W. L. Taylor. Atty. Gen., Merrill Moores, and C. C. Hadley, for the State.

HADLEY, C. J.

Appellant was indicted jointly with her husband, Martin Freese, for the murder of William Gray on July 25, 1901. Appellant's motion to quash the indictment was overruled, and, upon her plea of not guilty, she was accorded a separate trial by jury, which resulted in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, upon which verdict, over her motion for a new trial, she was sentenced to confinement in the woman's prison for and during her natural life.

The indictment, in substance, charges that appellant and Martin Freese “on the 25th day of July, 1901, at the county and state aforesaid, did then and there, feloniously, purposely, and with premeditated malice, kill and murder one William Gray, by then and there, feloniously, purposely, and with premeditated malice, shooting at, against, and into, and thereby mortally wounding, the said William Gray, with a certain deadly weapon, called a ‘revolver,’ then and there loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls, of which mortal wounding the said William Gray then and there instantly died,” etc. The objection to the indictment is that it does not describe the offense with sufficient certainty. The statute requires that an indictment contain “a

[65 N.E. 916]

statement of the facts constituting the offense in plain and concise language without unnecessary repetition.” Section 1800, Burns' Rev. St. 1901. We do not perceive wherein the indictment before us fails to conform to both the letter and spirit of the statute. No reasonable doubt can arise as to the place, or as to the precise nature of the offense charged, or as to the means by which it was committed, or as to the person against whom it was committed; and, with these things stated in clearness and certainty, the indictment must be held sufficient. The defendant pleaded “Not guilty,” and filed a special answer of insanity.

The undisputed facts are these: The appellant is 59 years of age, and lived with her husband in Franklin, Johnson county, Ind. The deceased had previously boarded with them, and within a few weeks before the homicide he, as appellant claims, went to her house and assaulted her. Soon thereafter, in informing her daughter about the assault, appellant cried and appeared much excited. The deceased, a stone mason, on July 25, 1901, was engaged under the Red Mill, repairing the foundation for Mr. Rasp, which mill is in Shelby county, eight or ten miles distant from Franklin. In the forenoon of that day, appellant, traveling with her husband in a buggy, went from Franklin to the Red Mill; and as they approached the latter place they were met by Mr. Rasp, the mill owner. A little conversation ensued. Rasp asked Martin Freese if he was looking for a job, and the latter replied that he was. Martin Freese then asked where Billy Gray was, and was informed that he (Gray) was at work under the mill. Rasp then invited appellant to go to the house, which was near by, where she would find women to entertain her; but she declined, remarking that she would go with her husband. Together appellant and her husband proceeded under the mill, where they had been informed Gray was at work, and, seeing Gray, they at once approached him, the husband holding onto appellant's arm; and, without any one uttering a word, appellant presented a revolver and shot him. Gray staggered away about 19 feet and fell, whereupon appellant walked to him, and, standing over him, fired another shot into his body. Then, without saying a word, appellant and her husband left the mill together, and went to their buggy, where they were joined by Brandenburg, to whom Martin Freese, in the presence of appellant, in explaining the act, said: “This is my wife. This man came down and came very near drowning her once, and tried to commit a rape, and now she gives him something.” They then got into the buggy and drove to their home. Gray died almost instantly, and without speaking.

In the course of the trial, and over appellant's objection, the court permitted Joseph McCain, a witness for the state, to testify: That, about 15 days before the homicide, Martin Freese, husband of appellant, purchased of witness, who was a dealer, a secondhand revolver, and that he returned with it the same day about noon, and wanted to exchange it, saying, in the absence of his wife (the appellant), that “the revolver wasn't easy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Schmittler v. State, No. 28620
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 22, 1950
    ...51 N.E.2d 474; Cazak v. State, 1925, 196 Ind. 63, 147 N.E. 138; Cotner v. State, 1909, 173 Ind. 168, 89 N.E. 847; Freese v. State, 1903, 159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915; Wm. P. Jungclaus Co. v. Ratti, 1918, 67 Ind.App. 84, 118 N.E. 966. There are occasions when testimony cannot be directly contro......
  • Bimbow v. State, No. 2--873A187
    • United States
    • August 29, 1974
    ...185; Brattain v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462; Sharp v. State (1903), 161 Ind. 288, 68 N.E. 286; Freese v. State (1902), 159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915; Hill v. State, supra; Plake v. State, supra. Accordingly, we deem the evidence to be sufficient to sustain the findings as to Bimb......
  • Smith v. Graves, No. 8394.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 19, 1915
    ...560-562, 20 N. E. 446;Shanks v. Robinson, 130 Ind. 479, 30 N. E. 516;Keesling v. Doyle, 8 Ind. App. 43-45, 35 N. E. 126;Freese v. State, 159 Ind. 597-600, 65 N. E. 915;Dye v. State, 130 Ind. 87, 29 N. E. 771;Tucker v. Hyatt, 151 Ind. 332-337, 51 N. E. 469, 44 L. R. A. 129;Musser v. State, 1......
  • Young v. State, No. 1071S301
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 30, 1972
    ...and incredible evidence) on that issue has eliminated the presumption of sanity. This very point is emphasized in Freese v. State (1903), 159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915 where the defendant pleaded insanity and introduced some evidence tending to prove insanity. The State offered no evidence to t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Schmittler v. State, No. 28620
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 22, 1950
    ...51 N.E.2d 474; Cazak v. State, 1925, 196 Ind. 63, 147 N.E. 138; Cotner v. State, 1909, 173 Ind. 168, 89 N.E. 847; Freese v. State, 1903, 159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915; Wm. P. Jungclaus Co. v. Ratti, 1918, 67 Ind.App. 84, 118 N.E. 966. There are occasions when testimony cannot be directly contro......
  • Bimbow v. State, No. 2--873A187
    • United States
    • August 29, 1974
    ...185; Brattain v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 489, 61 N.E.2d 462; Sharp v. State (1903), 161 Ind. 288, 68 N.E. 286; Freese v. State (1902), 159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915; Hill v. State, supra; Plake v. State, supra. Accordingly, we deem the evidence to be sufficient to sustain the findings as to Bimb......
  • Smith v. Graves, No. 8394.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 19, 1915
    ...560-562, 20 N. E. 446;Shanks v. Robinson, 130 Ind. 479, 30 N. E. 516;Keesling v. Doyle, 8 Ind. App. 43-45, 35 N. E. 126;Freese v. State, 159 Ind. 597-600, 65 N. E. 915;Dye v. State, 130 Ind. 87, 29 N. E. 771;Tucker v. Hyatt, 151 Ind. 332-337, 51 N. E. 469, 44 L. R. A. 129;Musser v. State, 1......
  • Young v. State, No. 1071S301
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 30, 1972
    ...and incredible evidence) on that issue has eliminated the presumption of sanity. This very point is emphasized in Freese v. State (1903), 159 Ind. 597, 65 N.E. 915 where the defendant pleaded insanity and introduced some evidence tending to prove insanity. The State offered no evidence to t......
  • 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