Lane v. State

• Citation: 51 N.E. 1056, 151 Ind. 511
• Case Date: November 29, 1898
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

151 Ind. 511
51 N.E. 1056

LANE
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 29, 1898.

Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county; James V. Kent, Judge.

Robert Lane was convicted of murder in the first degree, and appeals. Affirmed.

W. R. Moore and W. H. Everroad, for appellant. Wm. F. Palmer, Wm. A. Ketcham, and Merrill Moores, for the State.

MONKS, C. J.

Appellant was tried and convicted of the crime of murder in the first degree, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment for life. It is insisted that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion to quash the indictment, for the reason that the indictment does not show that the death of Thomas Good was caused by the alleged act of appellant. The indictment charges “that one Robert Lane, on the 20th day of October, 1897, at said county of Clinton, and state of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely, and with premeditated malice, unlawfully kill and murder Thomas Good, by then and there feloniously, purposely, and with premeditated malice shooting at and against the said Thomas Good with a gun, which was then and there loaded with powder and leaden balls.” The indictment charges in clear and unmistakable terms that appellant killed and murdered Thomas Good by shooting at and against the said Good with a gun loaded with powder and leaden balls, and this is certainly a direct averment that Good died, and that the cause of death was

[51 N.E. 1057]

appellant's acts, as alleged in the indictment. Wood v. State, 92 Ind. 269, 270;Meiers v. State, 56 Ind. 336, 342;Welch v. State, 104 Ind. 347, 348, 3 N. E. 850. The offense charged, “murder in the first degree,” is clearly set forth in plain and concise language, without unnecessary repetition, and is stated with that degree of certainty that the court may pronounce judgment upon a conviction according to the right of the case, as required by the fourth and fifth clauses of section 1824, Burns' Rev. St. 1894 (section 1755, Horner's Rev. St. 1897). Under the Code of Criminal Procedure in this state, no more certainty is required in criminal than in civil pleading; all that is required is that the averments be certain to a common intent. Meiers v. State, supra; McCool v. State, 23 Ind. 127, 129;State v. Jenkins, 120 Ind. 268, 269, 22 N. E. 133;State v. Hopper, 133 Ind. 460, 464, 32 N. E. 878; Gillett, Cr. Law (2d Ed.) § 125. Appellant insists, however, that the allegation “that appellant killed and murdered Thomas Good” is simply a conclusion. In Bechtelheimer v. State, 54 Ind. 128, there was no specific allegation in the indictment that the death of the deceased was caused by the alleged wrongful acts of the appellant, and objection was made to the indictment for that reason. Upon that question this court said (at page 133): “It is, however, alleged that the appellant and Young, by the means aforesaid, did kill and murder her. If this is true, the woman is dead, for the word ‘murdered’ ex vi termini imports death. Cordell v. State, 22 Ind. 1. If the allegation is true, moreover, she died by means of the administration of the poison. This objection is not well taken.” There is no defect or imperfection in the indictment which tended to prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant upon the merits...