Hart v. State
| Decision Date | 13 January 1914 |
| Docket Number | No. 22,468.,22,468. |
| Citation | 181 Ind. 23,103 N.E. 846 |
| Parties | HART v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
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.
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 shall be deemed to allege all that can be implied from the direct allegations therein, by a reasonable and fair intendment. Domestic Block Coal Co. v. De Armey, supra; Woodsmall v. State, 102 N. E. 130. A fact reasonably inferable from those pleaded, though stated indirectly, and argumentatively, may be deemed as averred. Woodsmall v. State, 102 N. E. 130;State v. Jessup, 42 Kan. 422, 22 Pac. 627. In Agar v. State, supra, it was said: “The true test of the sufficiency of an indictment is whether the material averments thereof are stated with such certainty as to apprise the defendants of the nature and character of the charge against him.”
Ordinarily, a charge in the language of the statute is sufficient. But, under section 2044, Burns 1908, such language is not necessary, and the equivalent thereof is sufficient. Moreover, by section 2062, Burns 1908, even if the indictment be questioned for uncertainty under clause 4, § 2065, Burns, it must be held sufficient, if the offense charged is stated with such definiteness that the court may pronounce judgment upon a conviction “according to the right of the case.” Agar v. State, supra. Where, as here, the defendant was charged with setting fire to his own property, it was not only necessary to allege that it was insured, but also to aver that the insurance was against loss or damage by fire. If the insurance were against loss or damage by tornado, the act denounced by the statute would not be properly averred. This indictment contains no direct allegation of insurance against loss by fire, but it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hanks
...the information the offense with which the defendant was charged; this is too clear to admit of serious doubt." (p. 424.) In Hart v. State, 181 Ind. 23, 103 N.E. 846, indictment alleged that the property was insured in a policy which had been issued by the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company......