Martin v. State, No. 29421

Docket NºNo. 29421
Citation236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d 455
Case DateApril 10, 1957
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 455

141 N.E.2d 455
236 Ind. 504
Ozell MARTIN, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 29421.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 10, 1957.

[236 Ind. 505]

Page 456

Milo C. Murphy, Gary, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Robert M. O'Mahoney, Deputies Atty. Gen., for appellee.

EMMERT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the appellant of murder in the second degree and sentencing him to imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison for life. The error assigned is the overruling of appellant's motion for new trial.

Appellant's motion for new trial challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. For the most part, the essential facts are not in dispute, but when we examine the evidence on appeal after a conviction to see if it sustains the verdict, we only consider the evidence most favorable to the State, including all reasonable and logical inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Kallas v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 103, 83 N.E.2d 769; Badgley [236 Ind. 506] v. State, 1949, 226 Ind. 665, 82 N.E.2d 841; Keith v. State, 1901, 157 Ind. 376, 61 N.E. 716.

At about 11:45 P.M., Central Standard Time, on July 17, 1955, appellant was playing cards in a club at 2500 Adams Street, Gary, Indiana. Eloma Taylor, a waitress in the club, had been his girl friend for several months. There was a quarrel between the appellant and Miss Taylor. He struck her and there was a fight during which her blouse was torn and her clothes disarrayed. Shortly before the fight appellant, who needed more money to continue playing cards, had sent his wife home to get some. After the fight he left and went to his home which was less than a block away. There he picked up a loaded pistol, put it in his pocket and returned to the club.

As he approached the entrance to the club Eloma Taylor was leaving in order to change her clothes. There was another argument and another fight, which was observed by two witnesses. During the course of the fight there was one shot and Eloma Taylor fell, saying, 'Oh you shot me.' The medical examiner testified that the cause of death was hemorrhaging due to a gunshot wound. The bullet entered the body in the lower left abdominal wall and traveled slightly downward and across to the right side of the body.

Page 457

According to appellant's testimony at trial, he took the gun from his home because he had run out of money, and he decided to pawn it and 'get back in the game.' The butt end of the gun was sticking out of his right-hand pocket, and, when he came close to Eloma and asked to inspect a bruise which she had received on the head during the previous fight, she seized the gun with her left hand and pointed it at him. He immediately grabbed her arm and twisted, and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Hill v. State, No. 368
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 9 Octubre 1969
    ...murder. Brown v. State, supra. Maxey v. State [252 Ind. 619] (1969), Ind., 244 N.E.2d 650. Warren v. State, supra. Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d 455. Murphy v. State (1869), 31 Ind. 511. For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Ju......
  • Shutt v. State, No. 1076S358
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 21 Octubre 1977
    ...a deadly weapon in such a manner as is likely to cause death. Dobbs v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 119, 143 N.E.2d 99; Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d However, such inference may be rebutted. Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 55 N.E.2d 325; Landreth v. State (1930), 201 I......
  • Miller v. State, No. 30100
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 11 Abril 1962
    ...511, 514. This rule has been consistently followed by this court and the current version is succinctly stated in Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 507, 141 N.E.2d 455, 457, as follows: 'Malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in such a manner as likely to caus......
  • Schmidt v. State, No. 967S87
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Diciembre 1970
    ...are believed at all they must be believed in their entirety. With this we cannot agree. This Court in the case of Martin v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d 455, had occasion to pass on this specific question. In that case the appellant had been convicted of shooting another person in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Hill v. State, No. 368
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 9 Octubre 1969
    ...murder. Brown v. State, supra. Maxey v. State [252 Ind. 619] (1969), Ind., 244 N.E.2d 650. Warren v. State, supra. Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d 455. Murphy v. State (1869), 31 Ind. 511. For all the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. Ju......
  • Shutt v. State, No. 1076S358
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 21 Octubre 1977
    ...a deadly weapon in such a manner as is likely to cause death. Dobbs v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 119, 143 N.E.2d 99; Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d However, such inference may be rebutted. Dickinson v. State (1944), 222 Ind. 551, 55 N.E.2d 325; Landreth v. State (1930), 201 I......
  • Miller v. State, No. 30100
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 11 Abril 1962
    ...511, 514. This rule has been consistently followed by this court and the current version is succinctly stated in Martin v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 504, 507, 141 N.E.2d 455, 457, as follows: 'Malice may be inferred from the intentional use of a deadly weapon in such a manner as likely to caus......
  • Schmidt v. State, No. 967S87
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 29 Diciembre 1970
    ...are believed at all they must be believed in their entirety. With this we cannot agree. This Court in the case of Martin v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 504, 141 N.E.2d 455, had occasion to pass on this specific question. In that case the appellant had been convicted of shooting another person in......
  • 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