Morgan v. State, No. 23756.

Docket NºNo. 23756.
Citation190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528
Case DateApril 08, 1921
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

190 Ind. 411
130 N.E. 528

MORGAN
v.
STATE.

No. 23756.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 8, 1921.


Appeal from Circuit Court, St. Joseph County; Shepard J. Crumpacker, Special Judge.

Kenneth Morgan was convicted of assault and battery with intent to kill, and he appeals. Reversed, with instructions to sustain motion for new trial.

[130 N.E. 529]


Arthur L. Gilliom and Eli F. Seebirt, both of South Bend, for appellant.

Ele Stansbury and Remster A. Bingham, both of Indianapolis, for the State.


WILLOUGHBY, C. J.

The appellant was convicted upon an affidavit charging him with assault and battery with intent to kill. To this affidavit he entered a plea of “not guilty” and also filed a special plea in writing setting up the defense of insanity.

A trial by jury resulted in a verdict of “guilty.” Judgment was rendered on such verdict and the appellant appeals and assigns as error that the court erred in overruling his motion for a new trial. The only errors alleged and not waived arise upon the giving and refusing of certain instructions.

The appellant claims that the court erred in giving of its own motion instructions Nos. 3, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 19, and 7B, also that the court erred in refusing to give instructions 1, 3, and 4 tendered by the appellant.

[1] Instruction No. 3 complained of by the appellant is on the subject of “reasonable doubt” and is as follows:

“A ‘reasonable doubt’ is a doubt based on reason, and which is reasonable in view of all the evidence. And after an impartial comparison and consideration of all the evidence, if you can candidly say that you are not satisfied of the defendant's guilt, you have a reasonable doubt; but, if after such impartial comparison and consideration of all the evidence you can truthfully say that you have an abiding conviction of the defendant's guilt, such as you would be willing to act upon in the more weighty and important matters, relating to your own affairs, then you have no reasonable doubt. But if you can reconcile the evidence before you upon any reasonable hypothesis consistent with the defendant's innocence, you should do so, and in that case find him not guilty.”

The objection of appellant to this instruction is that the test of reasonable doubt involves matters of the highest and most important affairs, while the instruction given uses the term “more weighty and important matters” instead of “matters of the highest and most important affairs.”

Appellant also claims that an instruction on reasonable doubt should make it plain to the jury that a juror should not find the defendant guilty unless the evidence produces a conviction upon which the juror would be

[130 N.E. 530]

willing to act without hesitation in matters of the highest and most important concern to himself, when there is no compulsion resting upon him to act at all.

[2] We think appellant is right in his contention. The instruction given is too narrow. Whatever is stated in that instruction as to reasonable doubt is true as far as it goes, but it is not as full and complete as the law requires. A juror in a criminal case ought not to condemn unless the evidence excludes from his mind all reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt; that is, unless he be so convinced by the evidence, no matter what the class of the evidence of the defendant's guilt, that a prudent man would feel safe to act upon that conviction in matters of the highest concern and importance to his own dearest personal interest, under circumstances where there was no compulsion resting upon him to act at all. Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 492.

[3] No other instructions given by the court supplies the defects apparent in this one. The defendant was entitled to an instruction which stated the law upon the subject of “reasonable doubt” fully and completely and instruction No. 1 tendered by him does so. See Bradley v. State, supra. This instruction so tendered by appellant should have been given, and the failure of the court to do so is error.

[4] Instruction No. 6 given by the court is condemned by appellant because he claims it was not applicable to this case, because the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 practice notes
  • Baker v. State, No. 29297
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1956
    ...compulsion or coercion upon him to act at all. Chambers v. State, 1953, 232 Ind. 349, Page 645 356, 111 N.E.2d 816; Morgan v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Bradley v. State, 1870, 31 Ind. 492. The standard of a prudent man is that of a reasonable man. If different persons might r......
  • State v. Searcy, No. 17835
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • September 5, 1990
    ...153 P. 756 (1915); Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 P. 39 (1916); People v. Lowhone, 292 Ill. 32, 126 N.E. 620 (1920); Morgan v. State, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528 See also State v. Pike, 49 N.H. 399 (1870); Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N.H. 227 (1875). ...
  • State v. Sapp, No. 40261.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1947
    ...74 Mo. 247; 14 Am. Jur., sec. 36, p. 793; People v. Lowhone, 292 Ill. 32, 126 N.E. 620; Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 492; Morgan v. State, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S.W. 186; Ryan v. People, 60 Colo. 425, 153 Pa......
  • Flowers v. State, No. 29336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1956
    ...v. State, 1869, 31 Ind. 492; Goodwin v. State, 1884, 96 Ind. 550; Plake v. State, 1890, 121 Ind. 433, 23 N.E. 273; Morgan v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Kallas v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 103, 83 N.E.2d 769. Page 194 The Durham rule 'is simply that an accused is not criminally res......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
34 cases
  • Baker v. State, No. 29297
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 13, 1956
    ...compulsion or coercion upon him to act at all. Chambers v. State, 1953, 232 Ind. 349, Page 645 356, 111 N.E.2d 816; Morgan v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Bradley v. State, 1870, 31 Ind. 492. The standard of a prudent man is that of a reasonable man. If different persons might r......
  • State v. Searcy, No. 17835
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • September 5, 1990
    ...153 P. 756 (1915); Flanders v. State, 24 Wyo. 81, 156 P. 39 (1916); People v. Lowhone, 292 Ill. 32, 126 N.E. 620 (1920); Morgan v. State, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528 See also State v. Pike, 49 N.H. 399 (1870); Hardy v. Merrill, 56 N.H. 227 (1875). ...
  • State v. Sapp, No. 40261.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 9, 1947
    ...74 Mo. 247; 14 Am. Jur., sec. 36, p. 793; People v. Lowhone, 292 Ill. 32, 126 N.E. 620; Bradley v. State, 31 Ind. 492; Morgan v. State, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Parsons v. State, 81 Ala. 577, 60 Am. Rep. 193; Bell v. State, 120 Ark. 530, 180 S.W. 186; Ryan v. People, 60 Colo. 425, 153 Pa......
  • Flowers v. State, No. 29336
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 27, 1956
    ...v. State, 1869, 31 Ind. 492; Goodwin v. State, 1884, 96 Ind. 550; Plake v. State, 1890, 121 Ind. 433, 23 N.E. 273; Morgan v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 411, 130 N.E. 528; Kallas v. State, 1949, 227 Ind. 103, 83 N.E.2d 769. Page 194 The Durham rule 'is simply that an accused is not criminally res......
  • 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