Pitts v. State, 27226.
| Citation | 216 Ind. 168,23 N.E.2d 673 |
| Decision Date | 07 December 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 27226.,27226. |
| Parties | PITTS v. STATE. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joseph Pitts was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Criminal Court, Lake County; William J. Murray, judge.
Milo C. Murray, of Gary, for appellant.
Omer S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and James K. Northam, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant has appealed from a conviction of murder in the second degree, and has assigned error upon the action of the court in overruling his answer in abatement and motion for a new trial.
A transcript containing a copy of all papers and order book entries was duly certified by the clerk of the Criminal Court of Lake County on the 5th day of May, 1939, and filed in the office of the clerk of this court on May 8, 1939. A written opinion by the court was filed November 6th, which was withdrawn November 8th upon information received by the court that the transcript had been materially altered without the knowledge of the clerk of the Criminal Court of Lake County, after it had been signed and certified by him. On receiving this information the court directed the clerk of the Criminal Court of Lake County to prepare and file a true and complete copy of the portion of the record alleged to have been altered. The clerk has complied with the order, and has filed the certified copy accompanied by supporting affidavits of the trial judge, prosecuting attorney, clerk of the court, and others, to which appellant, by counsel, has filed response, all of which is ordered filed and made part of the record.
On pages 9 and 10 of the original transcript as altered it is shown that an answer in abatement was filed and the court refused to hear evidence as to the facts alleged therein and overruled it, to which ruling the appellant excepted. The true record of the Criminal Court of Lake County, certified to by the clerk on the 7th day of November, 1939, now on file in this court, discloses that the appellant filed a plea in abatement to which the state replied by general denial. This record recites:
* * *’
The clerk of the Lake Criminal Court, on oath, says this entry was copied in the original transcript, but, without his knowledge or consent, was altered and forged to cause it to read that the court refused to hear evidence. The record before the court imports verity, and in the absence of a showing to the contrary, it must be presumed that the ruling of the trial court was correct. The appellant could ask for no more than a hearing upon his plea in abatement. This hearing was had. He has failed to show error in the court's finding and ruling thereon.
(The facts concerning the alteration of this transcript are being investigated by the court, and upon completion of the investigation will be dealt with in a separate proceeding warranted by the facts.)
The appellant contends that the judgment of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence. It is disclosed that on the evening of the 22nd day of June, 1938, the appellant, with two other colored men, was riding in an automobile on Broadway in the City of Gary; that the Louis-Schmelling prize fight had taken place that evening, and the appellant and his companions were driving over the city to see how the fight...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Berwanger v. State
...incumbent upon him to show affirmatively by the record that there was error prejudicial to his substantial rights. Pitts v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 168, 23 N.E.2d 673, 674; Hansbrough v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 688, 94 N.E.2d 534. Technical errors or defects which do not prejudice a defendant......
-
Emery v. State
...and malice may be inferred from the use of the shotgun which caused the death as charged in the indictment herein. Pitts v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 168, 170, 171, 23 N.E.2d 673; Myles v. State, 1955, 234 Ind. 129, 133, 124 N.E.2d In Bridgewater v. State (1899), 153 Ind. 560, 563, 55 N.E. 737,......
-
Helms v. State
...91; Miller v. State (1962), 242 Ind. 678, 181 N.E.2d 633; Schlegel v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 374, 150 N.E.2d 563; Pitts v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 168, 23 N.E.2d 673; Welty v. State (1912), 180 Ind. 411, 100 N.E. 73; Walker v. State (1893), 136 Ind. 663, 36 N.E. The existence of both of thes......
-
Brown v. State
...of his acts and such intent implies purpose by operation of law. Newport v. State (1894), 140 Ind. 299, 39 N.E. 926; Pitts v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 168, 23 N.E.2d 673. Consequently, we hold that no error was committed by the trial court in refusing to grant the appellant's motions for dire......