Monhollen v. State

• Decision Date: 11 December 1962
• Docket Number: No. 30178,30178
• Citation: 243 Ind. 486,186 N.E.2d 573
• Parties: Trig N. MONHOLLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 573

186 N.E.2d 573

243 Ind. 486

Trig N. MONHOLLEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 30178.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Dec. 11, 1962.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 30, 1963.

William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Carl E. Van Dorn, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

The appellant was tried by the court and found guilty of assault and battery with intent to murder and was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for a period of not less than one (1) nor more than ten (10) years. The conviction is appealed to this court on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the finding of the trial court. It is argued by the appellant that 'there is no evidence in the record from which the trial court could justifiably infer the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence was totally inadequate to sustain the finding of assault with intent to murder with reference to the appellant and indeed the evidence showed that appellant's brother had the gun at the time and place in question.'

On appeal we must consider only the evidence most favorable to the appellee. In brief, it shows that Frederick Ray, the father of appellant's wife, came to the appellant's residence late in the evening on January 14, 1961, at the telephone call of the wife. She asked him to come and get her and take her to his home. Ray testified that his daughter had called him numerous times before when her husband, the appellant, had beaten her. A friend of Ray's accompanied him to the home and when Ray entered the house, after knocking, he was struck and beaten by the appellant. The wife shouted at the time: 'He's killing daddy, get him off.' The appellant, when pulled off Ray, ran to the bedroom and the daughter shouted: 'He's getting his gun.' When Ray got to the bedroom the appellant had already seized a rifle and was opening the breech. The appellant later told the sheriff: 'If I had got to the shells I would have killed that s. o. b.' The appellant, when the rifle was taken away from him, said: 'We are going to kill you.' The appellant then left the house, went to his brother's home two blocks distant, and obtained a shotgun from his brother's bedroom. The appellant's brother confirmed this fact in a statement to the deputy sheriff. Appellant admitted that he later fired the shotgun at Ray but denied the statement later on the stand. When the police arrived, Ray was holding the appellant. Ray's automobile was 'shot up.' Shot marks could be observed from photographs which were introduced into evidence.

Appellant's contention that his brother fired one of the shots toward the end of the fight is not sufficient...