Hart v. State, No. 22,468.

• Docket Nº: No. 22,468.
• Citation: 181 Ind. 23, 103 N.E. 846
• Case Date: January 13, 1914
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

181 Ind. 23
103 N.E. 846

HART
v.
STATE.

No. 22,468.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Jan. 13, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warrick County; Ralph E. Roberts, Judge.

Guy Hart was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Roscoe Kiper, of Booneville, for appellant. Thomas M. Honan, Atty. Gen., and Thomas H. Branaman, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

MORRIS, C. J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of arson. In overruling his motion to quash the indictment, error is claimed.

The indictment charges that appellant did unlawfully, etc., “set fire to and attempt to burn a certain dwelling house, *** of the value of two thousand ($2,000.00) dollars, *** the property of the said Guy Hart, upon which house a policy of insurance for twenty-five hundred ($2,500.00) dollars had been issued by the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, which policy was then and there in force, with the intent to defraud the said Connecticut Fire Insurance Company, *** and did *** unlawfully *** set fire to and burn, and partially destroy said property, to the damage thereof in the sum of two hundred ($200.00) dollars, contrary to the form of the statute, etc.”

[1] The only ground for the motion to quash, here relied on, is the following: “That said indictment does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a public offense.” Clause 2, § 2065, Burns 1908. So much of the statute, under which the indictment was returned, as is pertinent here, reads as follows: “Whoever *** burns or attempts to burn any dwelling house, *** the property *** being insured against loss or damage by fire (italics ours)” and the burning or attempt to burn being with intent to *** defraud the insurer, is guilty of arson, etc.” Section 2260, Burns 1908.

It is contended that the indictment is insufficient to repel the motion to quash, because it contains no certain and direct averment that the insurance was against loss or damage by fire. Our Code of Criminal Procedure requires no greater degree of certainty in criminal pleadings than is required in civil ones. The latter on general demurrer, and the former, on the equivalent test of a motion to quash, grounded on clause 2 of section 2065, Burns, supra, must be certain only to a common intent. Agar v. State, 176 Ind. 234, 244, 94 N. E. 819, and cases cited; Domestic Block Coal Co. v. De Armey, 100 N. E. 675;Id., 102 N. E. 99, and cases cited. Certainty, to a common intent, at least under the Code system, is attained when the pleading...