Radley v. State
| Decision Date | 14 January 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 24886.,24886. |
| Citation | 197 Ind. 200,150 N.E. 97 |
| Parties | RADLEY v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; James A. Collins, Judge.
Thomas A. Radley was convicted of unlawful touching, beating, and striking another, and he appeals. Reversed, with directions for new trial.
Fred McCallister, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted on the charge that he “did then and there, in a rude, insolent, and angry manner, unlawfully touch, beat, and strike the person of one Mary D.,” etc. He was tried by the court without a jury, was found guilty, and sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and costs. Overruling his motion for a new trial for the alleged reasons that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law is the only error assigned.
The evidence showed, without dispute or contradiction, that defendant was driving an automobile west along the north side of Washington street in the city of Indianapolis, at the rate of from 15 to 20 miles an hour; that the prosecuting witness was waiting to board a street car on that side of the street, where the cars were accustomed to stop for passengers, near the intersection of Eastern avenue; that the space between the street railway track and the curb was 12 or 14 feet wide; that as defendant approached in his automobile the prosecuting witness stepped out from the curb and stood near the street railway track waiting for a street car, and, just as defendant's automobile was almost to where she stood, she ran across directly in front of it toward the curb; that the right fender of defendant's car, on the side next the curb, struck her, and the impact broke the lamp on that side of the car; that on the street immediately back of where the car struck her were marks about 12 feet long, where a car had “skidded” (but none of the eyewitnesses saw the automobile skid); that the injury was inflicted far enough in advance of the street car that it was seen by a person on the opposite side of the street, looking across in front of the car, and was seen by the motorman standing in the front end of the car; that the prosecuting witness, before she ran toward the curb, was in the place where passengers usually board street cars; that the street car stopped at the usual place where passengers get on; that where the prosecuting witness stood beside the track as defendant's automobile approached her was 8 or 10 feet from the curb, and she ran to within about 3 feet of the curb, where the automobile struck her; and that cars were parked along the street curb down to a point near where she stood, past which cars defendant had to drive before he turned in near the curb to pass the waiting place for passengers; that he stopped and parked his car, and came back and picked up the girl.
There was some slight conflict in the evidence as to other points, but the motorman testified that when the girl stepped into the street to signal the street car it was 100 feet distant from her, and the automobile was behind it, and that the defendant drove past the street car as it was slowing up to stop, and the automobile struck the girl just as the street car came to a stop. A policeman testified that there was no “safety zone” at that stopping place, and that defendant had said he put on his brake when he saw the girl crossing in front of the automobile. The injured girl testified that she did not remember anything that happened that day...
To continue reading
Request your trial