Henning v. State

Decision Date22 May 1886
Citation106 Ind. 386,7 N.E. 4
PartiesHenning v. State.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court


Appeal from Montgomery circuit court. On petition for rehearing. See 6 N. E. Rep. 803.

John R. Courtney, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for appellee.

Elliott, J.

The counsel for appellant petitions for a rehearing, but does not ask us to review any of the questions discussed and decided by us. We are now asked to discuss the questions presented by the evidence touching the alleged insanity of the appellant. The request is thus expressed:

“The appellant respectfully petitions the court for a rehearing of this cause, for the reason that the court, in the opinion and decision rendered, failed to pass upon the question of the insanity of the appellant as raised in the record and discussed in the briefs. It is true that the opinion speaks as to the homicide having been deliberately planned and executed,' but such deliberation is not inconsistent with a diseased condition of mind. Lunatics are sometimes deliberate and often cunning.”

Counsel is correct in saying that we did not discuss the evidence bearing upon the question of appellant's insanity, for we devoted our attention to the important and controlling questions in the case, so ably and vigorously presented by counsel, which questions we conceived to be the decisive ones demanding express notice. We did not, however, overlook the evidence upon the question of the defendant's mental condition,-that was studied with the other evidence,-but we thought, when the original opinion was decided upon, and we still think, that the question of the defendant's mental condition was so peculiarly one of fact for the jury that, under repeated decisions of this court, we could not interfere with the decision of the jury, and that it was unnecessary to expressly announce this conclusion. We have again read the evidence, and can see no reason to change our opinion. The question of the defendant's mental condition was properly submitted to the jury; and, as there is evidence satisfactorily sustaining their verdict, we cannot disturb it. Our duty is to ascertain whether the verdict is legally sustained by competent evidence, and we cannot, under long-settled rules, do otherwise than sustain the finding of the jury. We agree with counsel that insane persons may sometimes act deliberately; but in this case there is evidence tending to show that the deliberate acts were those of a sane man, and we cannot say that the jury...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Robinson v. State, 2-1072A80
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 15, 1974
    ... ... State (1869), 31 Ind. 511, 513 ... 'It is well settled that the sudden heat of passion sufficient to reduce a homicide from murder to manslaughter must be accompanied by adequate provocation. Henning v. The State (1886), 106 Ind. 386, 400, 6 N.E. 803, 812, 7 N.E. 4.' Yarber v. State, (1962), 242 Ind. 616, 619, 179 N.E.2d 882, 883 ...         In Henning (cited supra, in the quotation from Yarber v. State), the court had said: ... 'We understand the law to be perfectly well settled ... ...
  • Powell v. Commonwealth
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1944
    ... ... Powell v. Commonwealth, 179 Va. 703, 20 S.E.2d 536. Shortly thereafter Powell was conveyed to the State Penitentiary at Richmond to undergo the term of punishment imposed upon him.In January, 1943, the prisoner filed in this court a petition for a ... Commonwealth, 230 Ky. 840, 20 S.W.2d 1005; Colley v. State, 164 Ga. 88, 138 S.E. 65; State v. Bowman, Mo.Sup., 12 S.W.2d 51; Henning v. State, 106 Ind. 386, 6 N.E. 803, 7 N.E. 4, 55 Am.Rep. 756; Stephens v. People, 19 N.Y. 549; Whitfield v. State, 45 Okl.Cr. 397, 283 P ... ...
  • Powell v. Commonwealth, Record No. 2796.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court
    • January 24, 1944
    ... ... — The right to have the jury kept together is a right belonging both to the state and to the defendant, and where both the state and the defendant consent to the separation of the jury after the final submission of the cause and ... 87; Chadwell Commonwealth, 230 Ky. 840, 20 S.W.(2d) 1005; Colley State, 164 Ga. 88, 138 S.E. 65; State Bowman (Mo.), 12 S.W.(2d) 51; Henning State, 106 Ind. 386, 6 N.E ... Page 335 ... 803, 7 N.E. 4, 55 Am.Rep. 756; Stephens People, 19 N.Y. 549; Whitfield State, 45 Okla. Cr. 397, 283 ... ...
  • Boos v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 30, 1914
    ... ... cases do not mark the distinction in later cases, which to ... our minds are supported by the better reason, where there is ... jurisdiction, and an offense is charged, and time is not of ... the essence of the offense. Bohall v. State ... (1911), 176 Ind. 566, 570, 96 N.E. 576; Henning v ... State (1886), 106 Ind. 386, 392, 6 N.E. 803, 7 N.E ... 4, 55 Am. Rep. 756; State v. Emmett (1869), ... 23 Wis. 632; [181 Ind. 572] State v ... Claudle (1868), 63 N.C. 30; State v ... Blaisdell (1869), 49 N.H. 81; Commonwealth ... v. Miller (1881), 79 Ky. 451, and ... ...
  • 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