Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 19 December 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 29644,29644 |
| Parties | Jack William MARTIN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ralph E. Brill and N. George Nasser, Terre Haute, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Merl M. Wall, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by affidavit in two counts. Count one charged appellant with assault upon a child with intent to gratify his sexual desires, under § 10-403, Burns' 1956 Repl. [Acts 1905, ch. 169, § 354, p. 584; 1951, ch. 277, § 1, p. 825. 1 The case was tried to a jury who found appellant 'guilty of assault and battery as charged in count one of the affidavit.' Appellant was sentenced by the court to one to five years' imprisonment in the Indiana State Reformatory. From this judgment appellant appeals.
In this case we are confronted by the fact that simple assault and battery is an offense included within the charge of assault and battery upon a child with intent to gratify the sexual desires of the offending person. 2
By the expressed language of the verdict, and construing the same most favorably to the accused, it must be considered that the jury found the appellant guilty of simple assault and battery within the charge stated in the first count of the affidavit.
Appellee cites the following cases as sustaining a contrary position: Siple v. State, 1900, 154 Ind. 647, 649, 57 N.E. 544; Rose v. State, 1882, 82 Ind. 344, 345; Frolich v. State, 1858, 11 Ind. 213, 214; Kennedy v. State, 1855, 6 Ind. 485, 486. In each of these cases there were included offenses and the jury by its verdict found the defendant 'guilty as charged' in the affidavit or indictment. This court in each of the above cases held that the verdict must be construed as finding the defendant guilty of the greater charge.
However, the above cases are clearly distinguishable from the case at bar. In each of the above cases there was 'no want of certainty' [Kennedy v. State, supra] as to the offense for which the jury found the defendant guilty. In each case the affidavit or indictment expressly designated the crime with which the accused was charged and within which lesser offenses might be considered to exist and the verdict clearly and unequivocally, in each case, stated that the accused was guilty of the offense as charged. There was only one such offense. It was the greater offense charged. For this reason there was no want of certainty in such verdicts.
However, the circumstances are otherwise in the case at bar. Here the jury did not, in clear and concise terms, find the defendant 'guilty as charged,' or with 'assault and battery with intent as charged.' They found him guilty of assault and battery as charged. Assault and battery is an included offense with which appellant was charged. Here it cannot be said with any degree of certainty that the jury found appellant guilty of any offense other than assault and battery. In the face of this ambiguity the verdict must be construed favorably to the accused, as finding him guilty of assault and battery.
Assault and battery is a misdemeanor. Therefore, under § 9-1819, Burns' 1942 Repl. [Acts 1927, ch. 200, § 1, p. 574], it was the duty of the jury and not the court to fix the amount of the fine and imprisonment imposed upon the appellant. Shewmaker v. State, 1956, 236 Ind. 49, 52, 138 N.E.2d 290. In this case the verdict classified the crime as a misdemeanor but fixed no penalty. Such a verdict is void. It was not enforceable for any purpose against the appellant. Therefore, the accused was not obliged to file a motion venire de novo to correct the verdict before the discharge of the jury. West v. State, 1950, 228 Ind. 431, 92 N.E.2d 852.
Also, in this case the competency of two girls age six to testify as witnesses was challenged. It is asserted that their testimony is necessary to prove the corpus delicti and therefore that a decision upon this issue is material to the granting of a new trial. It is true that children under 10 are incompetent, unless it appears that they understand the nature and obligation of an oath. § 2-1714, Burns' 1946 Repl. However, in this case these children were carefully examined for the purpose of determining their competency. It is true that the children made conflicting statements when asked technical questions related to their competency, which questions they may well not have understood. However, they testified positively that they knew they should tell the truth and that they would be punished if they told a lie. In the light of this testimony the question of the competency was one which of necessity must rest within the sound...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Shipman v. State
...the discretion of the trial court, and it requires a showing of manifest abuse of such discretion to require reversal. Martin v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 174, 154 N.E.2d 714; Butler v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 241, 97 N.E.2d 492; Tyrrel v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 14, 97 N.E. We cannot say that t......
-
Book v. Board of Flood Control Com'rs, City of Indianapolis
... ... 2% of the assessed valuation of taxable property within the limits of said City, which is prohibited by Article XIII of the Constitution of the State of Indiana ... '(b) It violates Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United ... We have recently considered and decided this same question to the contrary in the case of Martin v. Ben Davis Conservancy District, Ind.1958, 153 N.E.2d 125, and also to some extent in Book v. State Office Bldg. Comm., Ind.1958, 149 [239 Ind ... ...
-
Kelsie v. State
...of Ind.Code § 35--8--2--1 and reversed the judgment on the charge for which the jury had assessed no penalty. Accord: Martin v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 174, 154 N.E.2d 714. In Crooks v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 72, 267 N.E.2d 52, the jury returned a verdict describing one offense and a sentenc......
-
Fultz v. State
...but rather it was incomplete. The finding of guilty of murder in the second degree cannot be questioned. Similarly, in Martin v. State, (1958) 239 Ind. 174, 154 N.E.2d 714, and Crotty v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 312, 236 N.E.2d 47, there was an irregularity in the verdict which rendered it qu......