Hedrick v. State, No. 28707

Docket NºNo. 28707
Citation229 Ind. 381, 98 N.E.2d 906
Case DateMay 23, 1951
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 906

98 N.E.2d 906
229 Ind. 381
HEDRICK

v.
STATE.
No. 28707.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 23, 1951.

[229 Ind. 382]

Page 907

Franklyn George, New Castle, for appellant.

J. Emmett McManamon, Atty. Gen., John Ready O'Connor, George W. Hand, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.

[229 Ind. 383] BOBBITT, Chief Justice.

Appellant was indicted under § 10-3401, Burns' 1942 Repl. for murder while attempting to commit robbery; was tried by a jury on his plea of not guilty; and was found guilty as charged and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for and during his natural life.

Motion for a new trial was seasonably filed and overruled.

The only error assigned is that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.

Because of the nature of the question here involved, we believe it is appropriate to include a short statement of the circumstances surrounding the crime for which appellant was indicted and convicted. Appellant was involved with one Clarence Gorman and Lawrence Anderson in an attempted robbery which resulted in murder. The state attempted to show by certain acts and conversations between appellant and said Gorman and Anderson prior to the commission of the crime, including the act of driving his automobile and taking said Gorman and Anderson to and from the scene of the crime and his presence at its commission, that he (appellant) aided and abetted the perpetration of said crime, thereby making him a principal.

One of the theories of defense presented by appellant was that even though he might have participated in the planning of the robbery, as the state attempted to show, he abandoned his intentions and undertook to withdraw from participation therein in such a manner and under such circumstances as would relieve him from any responsibility for the crime of murder.

Among other things, appellant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to give certain instructions tendered by him covering the substance of his defense of abandonment and withdrawal from the crime, which are tendered instructions numbered 1 and 2.

[229 Ind. 384] Tendered instruction No. 1, which is a modification of the court's instruction No. 16, is as follows:

'Instruction No. 1.

'The Court further instructs you that when two or more persons combine to commit a crime, each is criminally responsible for the acts of his confederates committed in the furtherance of the common design, and in contemplation of law the act of each is the act of all; except, however, that where one who had aided and encouraged its commission may nevertheless before its

Page 908

completion, withdraw all his aid and encouragement and escape criminal liability for the completed crime.'

Tendered instruction No. 2 is as follows:

'Instruction No. 2.

'The Court further instructs you that in order to constitute an effective abandonment of a criminal enterprise, both as a matter of law and of common sense, there must be some appreciable interval between the alleged abandonment and the act from responsibility for which escape is sought. It must be possible for a jury to say that the accused had wholly and effectively detached himself from the criminal enterprise before the act with which he is charged is in the process of consummation or has become so inevitable that it cannot reasonably be stayed. The process of detachment must be such as to show not only a determination upon the part of the accused to go no further but also such as to give his co-conspirators a reasonable opportunity, if they desire, to follow his example and refrain from further action before the act in question is committed.'

The record discloses some evidence of abandonment.

Clarence Gorman, a witness for the State, testified, in part, as follows:

(On direct examination).

'Q. Anything else in there that is not true? (Referring to signed statement). [229 Ind. 385] A. After we started over there, we started to come back and Anderson and I decided we had gone this far we would go through with the rest of it but Bud (Hedrick) didn't want to he wanted to chicken out, he wanted to go on home.

'Q. But he did go on with you? A. Yes, because he had to.

(On cross examination).

'Q. Isn't it true that he turned the car around and went back? A. Yes.

'Q. What was the matter with the car? A. It didn't sound right, it was leaking oil.

'Q. What was said there when you turned around? A. He said it didn't sound right and he was going back home and Anderson was in the back seat and had a gun in his hand and we told Hedrick just to go ahead and take us to Shirley, he had come this far and we would take him the rest of the way with us.

'Q. Did you observe Francis' countenance? A. Yes, he was afraid of me, I had a gun too.

'Q. Did he show any fear there? A. Yes, he did.

'Q. What did he (Anderson) say to him? A. He laid the gun across the front seat and said: 'You have come this far, you are going the rest of the way'. So we made him turn around and go to Shirley.

'Q. What did you have him do when you got there? A. We had him take us where we wanted to go and made him get out of the car with us.

'Q. Did he want to stay in the car? A. Yes, but I was afraid he would sneak out on us.

'Q. What did he do? A. Just stood there.

[229 Ind. 386] 'Q. Did he have a bandanna handkerchief? A. No.

'Q. Did he have anything in his hand? A. No.

'Q. Did you go up to the door? A. Yes.

'Q. What did you observe about him? A. He wanted to know what was coming off and I told him to be quiet. He still wanted to stay in the car.'

Appellant (defendant) testified on direct examination, in part, as follows:

'Q. Did you have any difficulty with your car? A. I told them my car was not working right and I didn't want to go over there anyhow.

'Q. What happened to your car? A. It started acting up and I stopped and turned around and strated back.

'Q. How far did you go...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...Barnes v. State, (1978) Ind., 378 N.E.2d 839, 843; Harrison v. State, (1978) Ind., 382 N.E.2d 920, 926; Hedrick v. State, (1951) 229 Ind. 381, 389, 98 N.E.2d 906, 910. The policy behind this defense is one of refusing to impose liability upon a person who has a "change of heart" and volunta......
  • New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Mercantile Nat. Bank of Hammond, No. 19086
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 14, 1960
    ...Company, 1940, 217 Ind. 434, 442, 26 N.E.2d 1006; Gamble v. Lewis, 1949, supra, 227 Ind. 455, 465, 85 N.E.2d 629; Hedrick v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 381, 387, 98 N.E.2d Appellant's tendered instruction No. 13 was refused by the court. The substance of this instruction is covered by appellant'......
  • Flowers v. State, No. 29336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1956
    ...a tendered instruction if the same is substantially covered by another or other instructions given to the jury. Hedrick v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 381, 387, 98 N.E.2d 906; Peltz v. State, 1953, 232 Ind. 518, 112 N.E.2d 853; Todd v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 594, 122 N.E.2d 343. There was no error......
  • Taylor v. Fitzpatrick, No. 29404
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 20, 1956
    ...Company, 1940, 217 Ind. 434, 442, 26 N.E.2d 1006; Gamble v. Lewis, 1949, supra, 227 Ind. 455, 465, 85 N.E.2d 629; Hedrick v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 381, 387, 98 N.E.2d Seventh: Specifications 9 to 22, inclusive, of the motion for a new trial are not discussed in the argument section of appel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...Barnes v. State, (1978) Ind., 378 N.E.2d 839, 843; Harrison v. State, (1978) Ind., 382 N.E.2d 920, 926; Hedrick v. State, (1951) 229 Ind. 381, 389, 98 N.E.2d 906, 910. The policy behind this defense is one of refusing to impose liability upon a person who has a "change of heart" and volunta......
  • New York, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Mercantile Nat. Bank of Hammond, No. 19086
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 14, 1960
    ...Company, 1940, 217 Ind. 434, 442, 26 N.E.2d 1006; Gamble v. Lewis, 1949, supra, 227 Ind. 455, 465, 85 N.E.2d 629; Hedrick v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 381, 387, 98 N.E.2d Appellant's tendered instruction No. 13 was refused by the court. The substance of this instruction is covered by appellant'......
  • Flowers v. State, No. 29336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1956
    ...a tendered instruction if the same is substantially covered by another or other instructions given to the jury. Hedrick v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 381, 387, 98 N.E.2d 906; Peltz v. State, 1953, 232 Ind. 518, 112 N.E.2d 853; Todd v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 594, 122 N.E.2d 343. There was no error......
  • Taylor v. Fitzpatrick, No. 29404
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 20, 1956
    ...Company, 1940, 217 Ind. 434, 442, 26 N.E.2d 1006; Gamble v. Lewis, 1949, supra, 227 Ind. 455, 465, 85 N.E.2d 629; Hedrick v. State, 1951, 229 Ind. 381, 387, 98 N.E.2d Seventh: Specifications 9 to 22, inclusive, of the motion for a new trial are not discussed in the argument section of appel......
  • 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