King v. State

Decision Date01 March 1918
Docket NumberNo. 23312.,23312.
Citation187 Ind. 220,118 N.E. 809
PartiesKING v. STATE.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Laurence County; Oren O. Swails, Judge.

Van King was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.

R. L. Mellen, of Bedford, for appellant. Ele Stansbury, of Indianapolis, and Marshall Woolery, of Bedford, for the State.

MYERS, J.

Appellant, in the court below, was charged by an indictment and convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter. The only question presented by this appeal calls for a review of the evidence. Appellant defended on the ground of self-defense. The defense of justifiable homicide was not sustained by the jury, and its verdict in this respect is questioned by appellant on the ground that there is no evidence tending to show an unlawful intention to take the life of the decedent, which is an essential element to be proved in order to sustain a charge of voluntary manslaughter.

[1] Appellant admits that he fired two shots at the person of the decedent from a 38-caliber revolver. Both shots took effect, the first in the neck, and the second in the body of decedent, thereby inflicting mortal wounds from which he immediately died. The revolver used by appellant in this instance was a dangerous and deadly weapon (Keesier v. State, 154 Ind. 242, 245, 56 N. E. 232;21 L. R. A. [N. S.] 500, note); and its use as here shown by the uncontradicted evidence would authorize the inference of an intention to kill (Murphy v. State, 31 Ind. 511;Deilks v. State, 141 Ind. 23, 40 N. E. 120;Walker v. State, 136 Ind. 663, 669, 36 N. E. 356;McDermott v. State, 89 Ind. 187, 194).

[2][3] The jury evidently drew this inference, and the intention to kill once established continued, and was not controverted by the defense relied on in this case. Appellant justified his act on the ground that he committed the act to protect himself from great bodily harm. The law of self-defense is now well settled in this state, but the question as to whether or not appellant made out a case entitling him to this protection was a question of fact for the jury. As to the law of self-defense, this court in Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80, 84 (26 Am. Rep. 52), said:

“The weight of modern authority, in our judgment, establishes the doctrine that, when a person, being without fault and in a place where he has a right to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel force by force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self-defense, his assailant is killed, he is justifiable.”

The doctrine announced in this case has been approved by this court in a number of cases, notably, Page v. State, 141 Ind. 236, 40 N. E. 745;Plummer v. State, 135 Ind. 308, 314, 34 N. E. 968;Fields v. State, 134 Ind. 46, 55, 32 N. E. 780.

The weight of the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom are matters entirely within the province of the jury, and upon a motion for a new trial, to be reviewed by the trial court. Presumably all this was done and a correct conclusion reached. The homicide occurred on November 10, 1916, at about 4:30 o'clock in the afternoon. Appellant and his wife, in substance, testified that decedent, without invitation, entered the home of appellant, and to his sister, who was the wife of appellant and the only person then in the house, used...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • White v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 22, 1968
    ... ... Landreth v. State, 1930, 201 Ind. 691, 697, 171 N.E. 192, 72 A.L.R. 891; Ellis v. State, 1899, 152 Ind. 326, 330, 52 N.E. 82; Buffkin v. State, 1914, 182 Ind. 204, 207, 106 N.E. 362; King v. State, 1918, 187 Ind. 220, 221, 118 N.E. 809; Myles v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 129, 124 N.E.2d 205, 207, certiorari denied, 1955, 349 U.S. 932, 75 S.Ct. 776, 99 L.Ed. 1262.' ...         It may have been proper for the appellant to arm himself after the threat by the deceased, and it may ... ...
  • Loza v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • September 23, 1974
    ... ... Landreth v. State (1930), 201 Ind. 691, 697, 171 N.E. 192, 72 A.L.R. 891; Ellis v. State (1899), 152 Ind. 326, 330, 52 N.E. 82; Buffkin v. State (1914), 182 Ind. 204, 207, 106 N.E. 362; King v. State (1918), 187 Ind. 220, 221, 118 N.E. 809; Myles v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 129, 124 N.E.2d 205, 207, certiorari denied (1955) 349 U.S. 932, 75 S.Ct. 776, 99 L.Ed. 1262 ... 'The further rule applicable here is stated in Myers v. State, supra (1922), 192 Ind. 592, at 594, 137 N.E. 547, at ... ...
  • Hooker v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 23, 1979
    ... ...         It is true that earlier cases held that an intention to kill is a necessary [180 Ind.App. 231] element of the offense of voluntary manslaughter. Ketring v. State (1936) 209 Ind. 618, 200 N.E. 212; King v. State (1918) 187 Ind. 220, 118 N.E. 809. No case has clearly held, however, that this is a requirement of a showing of specific intent. In fact, Hill v. State (1937) 212 Ind. 692, 11 N.E.2d 141, found erroneous an instruction stating that the only difference between voluntary manslaughter and ... ...
  • Myers v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 22, 1922
    ... ... matters for the jury alone to consider and weigh in ... determining whether or not she committed the homicide in the ... reasonable exercise of the right of self-defense, and its ... conclusion thereon the record before us will not allow us to ... disturb. King v. State (1918), 187 Ind ... 220, 118 N.E. 809; Ellis v. State (1898), ... 152 Ind. 326, 52 N.E. 82 ...           In ... this state, the law of self-defense, as deduced from [192 ... Ind. 595] modern authorities, is, "that, when a person, ... being without fault, and in a place ... ...
  • 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