Meek v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 1933
• Docket Number: No. 25647.,25647.
• Citation: 185 N.E. 899,205 Ind. 102
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court
• Parties: MEEK v. STATE.

205 Ind. 102

185 N.E. 899

MEEK

v.STATE.

No. 25647.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 8, 1933.

Appeal from Owen Circuit Court; Herbert A. Rundell, Judge.

Ralph Meek was convicted of blackmail, and he appeals.

Affirmed.Noel, Hickam, Boyd & Armstrong and William A. Stuckey, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, of Indianapolis,, and Bernard A. Keltner, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.

FANSLER, Judge.

The appellant was convicted of blackmail.

Section 2440, Burns' 1926, is as follows: “Whoever, either verbally, or by any letter or writing, or any written or printed communication, demands of any person, with menaces of personal injury, any chattel, money, or valuable securities; or whoever accuses or threatens to accuse, or knowingly sends or delivers any letter or writing or any written or printed communication, with or without a name subscribed thereto, or signed with a fictitious name, or with any letter, mark or designation, accusing or threatening to accuse, any person of any crime punishable by law, or of any immoral conduct, which, if true, would tend to degrade and disgrace such person, or in any way subject him to the ridicule or contempt of society; or whoever threatens to do any injury to the person or property of any one, with intent to extort or gain from such person any chattel, money or valuable security, or any pecuniary advantage whatsoever, or with any intent to compel the person threatened to do any act against his will, with the intent aforesaid, is guilty of blackmailing, and shall, on conviction, be imprisoned in the state prison not less than one year nor more than five years, to which may be added a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars.”

The affidavit, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:

“William E. Treadway, who being duly sworn, upon his oath says that Ralph Meek late of said County and State, on the 8th. day of February, 1928, at and in the County aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and knowingly send and cause to be delivered to Mary Ann Haltom, a certain letter directed to the said Mary Ann Haltom, by the name and description of Mary Ann Haltom, Cataract, Indiana, and did then and there and thereby, wrongfully, and without cause, threaten the said Mary Ann Haltom that he, the said Ralph Meek, would take, steal and carry away the dead body of the husband of the said Mary Ann Haltom from its grave in the Cataract cemetery for the avowed purpose of selling said body, with the felonious intent on the part of the said Ralph Meek then and there and thereby to wrongfully extort from said Mary Ann Haltom Two Hundred Dollars in lawful and current money of the United States, the property of the said Mary Ann Haltom, which letter is as follows, that is to say:-

“Miss Mary Ann Haltom Cataract Ind

“Dear Miss You will be some what supries to get a letter like this But we always give every one a canch to do as we say We know you dearly love your Husman and we know that you wouden want his body move from where he is resting. But we have been offer a grate some of money for a man about the size of your man and we are going to get his body if you dont do as we say for you to do. For this all we do for a liven is robbe graves. So if you will do as we want you to his body will never be taken by us. You can eather leave two Hundred dollars in Cash under the south west corner of the big red store across from your barn Leave the money in a glass gar. And be sure and put it under there after night. And there is one thing sure dont say anything to no one about this or the body will be got any way. So we will give you until next Wednesday night to leave the money there. And if it isent there you may look any time for your Husman body to be gone from his grave. And dont say anything to no one or it will be taken sure.

“Yours watching

“We have been down there and look over everything over, so you had better do as we say.-as affiant is informed and believes, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.”

The appellant predicates error upon the overruling of his motion in arrest of judgment. He contends that the affidavit does not state a cause of action...