Mattox v. State
| Decision Date | 28 May 1913 |
| Docket Number | No. 22,324.,22,324. |
| Citation | 101 N.E. 1009,179 Ind. 575 |
| Parties | MATTOX v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Oren Hack, Sp. Judge.
Paul Mattox was convicted of burglary, and he appeals. Reversed, with instructions to grant new trial.
Harry P. Mayer, for appellant. Thomas M. Honan and Thomas H. Branaman, both of Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was indicted, tried, and found guilty of burglary, and it was found that he was 20 years of age, and he was sentenced to imprisonment in the reformatory for not less than 10 nor more than 20 years.
The sole error assigned is in overruling his motion for a new trial, and reliance is placed on the failure of the evidence to show an entry, and the refusal of instructions to the point that by an entry with an implement which was used in the breaking, but not for the purpose of committing or aiding in the commission of the felony charged, in this case larceny, there is no burglary, and the giving of instructions to the point that there may be a constructive burglary, by the entry of the appliance he used. The evidence shows the attempt in the nighttime to pry open the door of a business room, by means of a bar of iron and a block of wood attempted to be inserted between the jamb and the door proper, the approach of an officer, and flight of appellant. This is not sufficient to constitute burglary, or a felonious breaking and entry with intent to commit a felony, and the Attorney General so admits. Gillett, Criminal Law, §§ 267, 268; Roscoe, Criminal Evidence (10th Ed.) 366; 2 Bishop, Crim. Law, § 93; 1 Wharton, Cr. Law (10th Ed.) 696; 2 Russell on Crimes (6th Ed.) 696; 6 Cyc. 183; State v. Crawford, 8 N. D. 539, 80 N. W. 193, 46 L. R. A. 312, 73 Am. St. Rep. 773, and notes; Rex v. Hughes, 2 East, P. C. 491; Rex v. Rust, 1 Moody, C. C. 183.
The judgment is reversed, with instructions to the court below to grant a new trial, and to the superintendent of the reformatory to deliver the prisoner to the sheriff of Marion county.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Yerkes
...v. State, 220 So.2d 406, 407 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1969); People v. Davis, 279 N.E.2d 179, 181 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972); Mattox v. State, 101 N.E. 1009, 1009 (Ind. 1913); State v. Ervin, 573 P.2d 600, 601 (Kan. 1977)4; Stamps v. Commonwealth, 602 S.W.2d 172, 173 (Ky. 1980); State v. Liberty, 280......
-
State v. GRUBAUGH, 5272
...314; Walker v. State, 63 Ala. 49, 35 Am.Rep. 1; Gaddie v. Commonwealth, 117 Ky. 468, 78 S.W. 162, 111 Am.St.Rep. 259; Mattox v. State, 179 Ind. 575, 101 N.E. 1009. See, also, 9 C.J. page 1020, 12 C.J.S., Cancellation of Instruments, § 51, and Wharton on Criminal Law, 11th Ed. page 1203. If ......
-
Sluss v. State, 1-282A41
...Lee, supra ; however, in the case at bar, there was no evidence of entry at all, an essential element of burglary. In Mattox v. State, (1913) 179 Ind. 575, 101 N.E. 1009, evidence showing an attempt to pry open a door of a place of business, the approach of an officer, and the flight of the......
-
McCormick v. State
...door, (Link v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 466, 113 N.E.2d 43) or inserted an iron bar between the jam (sic) and the door, (Mattox v. State (1913), 179 Ind. 575, 101 N.E. 1009), a showing that defendant has leaned through a window to enable him to take money from a jukebox is sufficient to estab......