Jackson v. State, 29593
| Decision Date | 10 June 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29593,29593 |
| Citation | 238 Ind. 365,151 N.E.2d 141 |
| Parties | Loretta JACKSON, alias Loretta Warren, alias Loretta Lanton, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Melville E. Watson, Greenfield, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Merl M. Wall, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged with the crime of murder in the second degree and found guilty of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. This is an appeal from that judgment. The error assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial. The only causes set forth in the motion for a new trial, discussed in appellant's argument section of the brief, are:
'1. That the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
These points boil down to the contentions that the appellant committed the killing in self-defense.
On appeal we do not weigh or sift the evidence, selecting what we think is believable and rejecting what we think is not credible. We review the evidence only to determine if it is sufficient to sustain the verdict.
The evidence shows that the appellant was at the home of Otis Roberts on the Sunday evening the decedent, Joshua Jackson, was killed. The parties were all drinking intoxicating liquor. The deceased called the appellant into his room. Some time after that she came out of the deceased's room and told Roberts she had cut or stabbed the deceased. The deceased was left dying on the bed in the room. The evidence shows that his throat was cut. She later told police officers that the deceased had threatened her with a gun and she seized the knife and stabbed him in self-defense. No gun was ever discovered in the deceased's possession or on the premises. None of the persons present in the house at the time heard any turmoil or fighting in the room where the deceased and the appellant were prior to the killing. There was some conflict in the details of her story and those of the witnesses. At the trial she testified that she and the deceased were standing at the doorway, he threatening her with a gun, when she stabbed him.
It is apparent that the jury disbelieved her story of self-defense. For the jury to have accepted this story, it would have been necessary for them to believe that the deceased had a gun and to believe her statement that she saw a gun which the deceased had. There was no corroborative evidence to support this part of her story, since no gun was ever found which the deceased could have possessed at the time he was killed.
In Schlegel v. State of Indiana, Ind.1958, 150 N.E.2d 563, the jury there had the choice of believing or not believing the appellant's testimony with reference to self-defense, although it accepted other parts of the appellant's story of how the killing occurred. This court said in that case:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 29661
...mind. We have no right to disturb a jury's finding when supported by evidence. Burton v. State, Ind.1958, 148 N.E.2d 838; Jackson v. State, Ind.1958, 151 N.E.2d 141. Items 1 and 2 of the motion for a new trial contend that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and ......
-
Green v. State
...v. State (1949), 228 Ind. 1, 88 N.E.2d 556, 89 N.E.2d 442; Griffiths v. The State (1904), 163 Ind. 555, 72 N.E. 563; Jackson v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 365, 151 N.E.2d 141; Schuble v. State (1948), 226 Ind. 299, 79 N.E.2d 647; Hogan v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 271, 132 N.E.2d 908.' See also Sh......
-
Sanders v. State
...State (1968), 250 Ind. 147, 234 N.E.2d 261, 237 N.E.2d 376; Swift v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 877, 176 N.E.2d 117; Jackson, etc. v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 365, 151 N.E.2d 141. Therefore, the jury was certainly not bound to accept the appellant's entire explanation of the In regard to the argu......
-
McCoy v. State
...admissible, if material or relevant to the issues involved. Watts v. State, 1950, 229 Ind. 80, 95 N.E.2d 570, 571; Jackson, etc. v. State, 1958, 238 Ind. 365, 151 N.E.2d 141; Vorhis v. State, 1953, 233 Ind. 105, 116 N.E.2d Under assignments 50 to 60, both inclusive, under the supplemental m......