Ray v. State, 29125
| Decision Date | 30 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 29125,29125 |
| Citation | 121 N.E.2d 732,233 Ind. 495 |
| Parties | Jack Charles RAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rochford & Rochford, and Alembert W. Brayton, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Givan, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
In his petition for rehearing the appellant calls our attention to the fact that he properly challenged the sufficiency of the facts stated in count one of the indictment to constitute a public offense under the laws of the State of Indiana, by addressing a motion in arrest of judgment thereto. The motion was overruled.
The appellant contends that the reckless homicide statute upon which count two of the indictment is based is specific and includes all the elements necessary to prove the more general offense of involuntary manslaughter, and so only the reckless homicide statute is presently in effect. Since count one of the indictment (involntary manslaughter) was based upon driving an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquor as the proximate cause of death, and wholly fails to charge facts constituting the offense of reckless homicide, the appellant insists count one of the indictment was insufficient.
We think all of appellant's arguments in support of his position are fully answered by Burns' 1952 Repl., § 47-2002, which reads as follows:
'All proceedings under section 52 ( § 47-2001) of this act shall be subject to the following provisions:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McKinley v. Overbay
...objection, the ruling of the court and the answer, or at least the substance thereof. Ray v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 495, 120 N.E.2d 176, 121 N.E.2d 732; Gernhart v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 470, 120 N.E.2d 265; Hire v. Pinkerton, 1955, 126 Ind.App. 23, 127 N.E.2d 244; Henderson v. State, 1955, ......
-
Kidwell v. State, 1267
...the trier of fact is given the specific data from which the conclusion is to be drawn. Ray v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 495, 120 N.E.2d 176, 121 N.E.2d 732. The trier of fact is entitled to draw logical inferences from the evidence submitted. Hudson v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 237, 139 N.E.2d Th......
-
Matthews v. Adoniram Grand Lodge of Perfection, Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite, 18963
...objection, the ruling of the court and the answer, or at least the substance thereof. Ray v. State (1954) 233 Ind. 495, 120 N.E.2d 176, 121 N.E.2d 732; Gernhart v. State (1954) 233 Ind. 470, 120 N.E.2d 265; Altmeyer v. Norris (1954) 124 Ind.App. 470, 119 N.E.2d 31; Hire v. Pinkerton (1955) ......
-
Alldredge v. State
...that the accused freely and voluntarily consented to the test, it was admissible. Ray v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 495, 120 N.E.2d 176, 121 N.E.2d 732; Willennar v. State, 1950, 228 Ind. 248, 91 N.E.2d 178; Spitler v. State, 1943, 221 Ind. 107, 46 N.E.2d 591. The United States Supreme Court has......