Ogle v. State, No. 23612.

Docket NºNo. 23612.
Citation127 N.E. 547, 193 Ind. 187
Case DateMay 25, 1920
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

193 Ind. 187
127 N.E. 547

OGLE
v.
STATE.

No. 23612.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 25, 1920.


Appeal from Circuit Court, Hamilton County; Ernest E. Cloe, Judge.

Allston Ogle was convicted of arson, and he appeals. Affirmed.


George W. Galvin and Hottel & Patrick, all of Indianapolis, for appellant.

Ele Stansbury, A. B. Cronk, and Newman T. Miller, all of Indianapolis, for the State.


MYERS, C. J.

In the Hamilton circuit court appellant was convicted of arson. The subject of the arson was a barn located in Hamilton county, and the property of Gilbert Hanna. Appellant was tried by the court. Following the overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial, he was sentenced to imprisonment at the Indiana Reformatory for a period of from 2 to 21 years and to pay a fine of $50.

[1] The only error here assigned is the overruling of the motion for a new trial. Appellee makes the point that the bill of exceptions containing the evidence is not in the record, for the reason that there is no order–book entry showing that such bill was filed after it was signed by the trial judge. We have examined the record on this subject, and find an order–book entry showing that the bill was presented, signed, and filed in open court. This showing was sufficient in that respect to make the bill a part of the record. Rose v. Chicago, etc., R. Co., 181 Ind. 658, 659, 105 N. E. 241;Indianapolis Outfitting Co. v. Brooks, 59 Ind. App. 79, 108 N. E. 867.

The motion for a new trial contains various causes, the most important of which is the claimed erroneous admission of certain evidence by the court over appellant's objection, and that the effect of the action of the state fire marshal was to grant appellant immunity for the crime with which he was charged.

The uncontradicted evidence shows that the fire, which entirely consumed the building, occurred at night on February 27, 1919; that a few days before, and on the afternoon

[127 N.E. 548]

before the fire, appellant told certain persons that he was going to burn the barn, and gave his reasons for his intention; that on the morning after the fire he admitted to one of these same parties that he had burned it. It further appears that the state fire marshal, on being advised of the fire, instructed one of his assistants to investigate the cause thereof. Thus the investigation was started and continued, and during the progress thereof an affidavit was filed before a justice of the peace of Hamilton county charging this appellant with the crime of which he was later convicted. A warrant was issued by the justice of the peace, and placed in the hands of an arresting officer, who, with other persons, including the assistant fire marshal, proceeded in an automobile to the home of appellant, in Madison county, where he was arrested, and immediately taken to the state fire marshal's office in the city of Indianapolis. Without being interrogated he left that office with the arresting officer, and on the next morning, in company with such officer, he returned to the fire marshal's office, when and where he was questioned concerning his connection with the fire.

This examination, at first being in the nature of questions and answers taken down by a shorthand reporter, was finally reduced to writing in narrative form, signed and sworn to by appellant before a notary public, an employé in the fire marshal's office. This narration was in the nature of a written confession.

At the trial, which resulted in a conviction, the state, over appellant's objection, was permitted to read in evidence the purported written confession, and witnesses were permitted to testify as to what appellant said concerning the fire, and his connection with it, while in charge of the arresting officer at the fire marshal's office.

[2] The objection urged against the admission of this evidence, and to which appellant has called our attention, is to the effect that it was not admissible, as tending to prove...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • D.M. v. State , No. 49S02–1101–JV–11.
    • United States
    • June 22, 2011
    ...custodial interrogation. See, e.g., Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897); Ogle v. State, 193 Ind. 187, 191–93, 127 N.E. 547, 548–49 (1920). The privilege also prohibits the use of compelled statements in juvenile delinquency proceedings. 6 In re Gault,......
  • Hamilton v. State, No. 26358.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 20, 1934
    ...v. State (1889) 119 Ind. 488, 21 N. E. 1109;Mack v. State (1932) 203 Ind. 355, 180 N. E. 279, 83 A. L. R. 1349;Ogle v. State (1920) 193 Ind. 187, 127 N. E. 547, and it has also been held that the admissibility of confessions against the accused must ordinarily depend upon a preliminary ques......
  • Ajabu v. State, No. 71S00-9512-CR-1377
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 6, 1998
    ...will be deemed to have done so voluntarily." State Page 931 v. Comer, 157 Ind. 611, 613, 62 N.E. 452, 453 (1902); see also Ogle v. State, 193 Ind. 187, 127 N.E. 547 (1920) (assertion of right to remain silent during police questioning is personal and may be waived). In sum, the language, te......
  • McGee v. State, No. 28705
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 27, 1952
    ...motion for a new trial. Judgments affirmed. --------------- 1 A confession in this form has been held admissible. Ogle v. State, 1923, 193 Ind. 187, 190, 127 N.E. 2 Attention is directed to Ch. 273 of the 1949 Acts, § 9-704a, Burns' 1942 Supp. There was no reason why the charge of robbery c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • D.M. v. State , No. 49S02–1101–JV–11.
    • United States
    • June 22, 2011
    ...custodial interrogation. See, e.g., Bram v. United States, 168 U.S. 532, 542, 18 S.Ct. 183, 42 L.Ed. 568 (1897); Ogle v. State, 193 Ind. 187, 191–93, 127 N.E. 547, 548–49 (1920). The privilege also prohibits the use of compelled statements in juvenile delinquency proceedings. 6 In re Gault,......
  • Hamilton v. State, No. 26358.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 20, 1934
    ...v. State (1889) 119 Ind. 488, 21 N. E. 1109;Mack v. State (1932) 203 Ind. 355, 180 N. E. 279, 83 A. L. R. 1349;Ogle v. State (1920) 193 Ind. 187, 127 N. E. 547, and it has also been held that the admissibility of confessions against the accused must ordinarily depend upon a preliminary ques......
  • Ajabu v. State, No. 71S00-9512-CR-1377
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 6, 1998
    ...be deemed to have done so voluntarily." State Page 931 v. Comer, 157 Ind. 611, 613, 62 N.E. 452, 453 (1902); see also Ogle v. State, 193 Ind. 187, 127 N.E. 547 (1920) (assertion of right to remain silent during police questioning is personal and may be waived). In sum, the language, te......
  • McGee v. State, No. 28705
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 27, 1952
    ...motion for a new trial. Judgments affirmed. --------------- 1 A confession in this form has been held admissible. Ogle v. State, 1923, 193 Ind. 187, 190, 127 N.E. 2 Attention is directed to Ch. 273 of the 1949 Acts, § 9-704a, Burns' 1942 Supp. There was no reason why the charge of robbery c......
  • 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