Manna v. State

Decision Date07 October 1982
Docket NumberNo. 1281S371,1281S371
PartiesHollis MANNA, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Paul Levy, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PRENTICE, Justice.

Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of Murder in Perpetration of a Robbery, Ind.Code Sec. 35-13-4-1(a) (Burns 1975) and was sentenced to life imprisonment.

On July 28, 1967, two witnesses independently observed Defendant and the victim struggling in a Gary alley. The victim was knocked to the ground and did not arise. One witness heard the assailant, identified by each witness as the defendant, demand money and a watch from the victim. That witness then called the police. As a private automobile entered the alley, followed immediately by a police patrol car, the defendant fled. The private automobile ran over the victim before the driver could stop the car. Defendant was arrested a short distance away, carrying the decedent's watch.

Defendant contends that the State failed to prove that Defendant caused or contributed to decedent's death. He also argues that the proof at trial fatally varied from the indictment.

A pathologist testified that the decedent died from a combination of injuries, including severe chest fractures and brain damage. The chest injury was the more severe injury and was caused by the automobile passing over the victim. The head injuries had not been caused by the automobile, but the pathologist was unable to determine, with certainty, whether they had been caused by repeated blows from a fist, or inflicted indirectly. However, the defendant may not avoid responsibility since his acts were also factors in the victim's demise.

Three witnesses testified that they saw Defendant struggle with the victim and then depart leaving the victim lying in the alley. An individual who inflicts injury upon another is guilty if the injury directly contributes mediately or immediately to the death of that person. Miller v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 595, 335 N.E.2d 206; Thomas v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 1109, Bivins v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 184, 258 N.E.2d 644. At trial, Defendant denied striking the decedent and presented a different version of the events, but the jury chose to believe the State's witnesses. The proof was that all the wounds caused the death and that the head wounds were not caused by the automobile. The jury also had before it evidence that Defendant had been at the scene of the crime and had fled. Such evidence may be considered as circumstantial evidence of a consciousness of guilt. Frith v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 100, 325 N.E.2d 186. The jury could reasonably have concluded that the defendant struck the deceased and thereby rendered him unconscious or otherwise unable to extricate himself from the path of the oncoming automobile that eventually struck him. Under such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State v. Boles
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • August 18, 1992
    ...the accused intended to cause death and the fall was the direct result of the action taken to effectuate that intent. See Manna v. State, 440 N.E.2d 473, 475 (Ind.1982); State v. Williams, 652 S.W.2d 102, 111-12 (Mo.1983); 1 W. LaFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law § 3.12.6 Plain erro......
  • Myers v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 3, 1987
    ...to define the issues so that the court will be able to determine what evidence is admissible and to pronounce judgment. Manna v. State (1982), Ind., 440 N.E.2d 473, 475. Where the means of committing a homicide are expressed in the charging instrument, the State must prove that death occurr......
  • Weaver v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • December 20, 1991
    ...of the accusation in sufficient detail to enable him to prepare his defense, and to protect him against double jeopardy. Manna v. State (1982), Ind., 440 N.E.2d 473. A variance between the information and the proof at trial is thus fatal to the State's case only when the variance "misleads ......
  • Ingleton v. State, 96-187
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • September 26, 1997
    ...variance was created where state failed to prove alleged weapon, or any weapon, was used and defendant not prejudiced); Manna v. State, 440 N.E.2d 473 (Ind.1982) (holding allegation of the weapon which caused death was surplusage and variance from allegation not fatal where no prejudice ...
  • 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