Reed v. State

Citation141 Ind. 116, 40 N.E. 525
Case DateApril 23, 1895
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

141 Ind. 116
40 N.E. 525

REED
v.
STATE.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

April 23, 1895.


Appeal from circuit court, Hancock county; W. H. Martin, Judge.

William Reed was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and appeals. Affirmed.


Thos. Hanna, McBride & Denny, and Affutt & Black, for appellant. A. G. Smith, for the State.

JORDAN, J.

The appellant was, by an indictment of the grand jury of Marion county, charged with the crime of murder in the first degree, for the killing of one Samuel Barker, at said county, on the 13th of October, 1893. On a change of venue he was tried upon a plea of not guilty in the Hancock circuit court before a jury, and convicted of voluntary manslaughter, and his punishment assessed at imprisonment in the state prison for a term of 10 years. Over a motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered upon the verdict, from which he has appealed to this court, and has assigned for error the overruling of his motion for a new trial. A brief outline of the circumstances and facts surrounding the alleged homicide appear to be as follows: The deceased was an old man engaged in the service of a merchant policeman in the city of Indianapolis, and on the night of the alleged crime he was employed as a special officer, and placed in charge of the door at Mannerchor Hall, in said city, where a private reception in honor of some prominent German society people was being held. He had been instructed to admit no persons save those that presented a ticket of invitation. The appellant, in company with some companions, after the hour of midnight, came to the hall in a state of intoxication, and without invitation attempted to force his way into the hall, and intrude his presence upon the party assembled within. To prevent this intrusion, the deceased intercepted Reed at the door, and shoved him back. This so enraged him that he began to use vile and obscene language, and threatened the policeman with bodily harm. He was finally forced away from the door, and reached the street, where he continued his violent, abusive, and threatening language until the deceased approached within about 10 feet of him, when, as it appears, he picked up a stone and threw it with force at Barker, the stone striking the latter on the head, fracturing the skull, from the effects of which he died.

Twelve reasons were assigned for a new trial. Of these the first and second relate to the sufficiency of the evidence. At the solicitation of the learned counsel for appellant, we have examined the evidence, and feel fully warranted and justified in adjudging that the same clearly sustains the verdict of the jury in every material matter, and that the accused has no grounds for complaint in that respect. Considering all of the evidence, it is apparent to us that the jurors, in finding the appellant guilty of manslaughter, and affixing the penalty which they did, yielded more to the promptings of mercy than they did to the weight of the evidence, for we are of the opinion that the latter would have authorized a conviction of a higher grade of homicide. The evidence elicited from the appellant when he was examined as a witness in his own behalf, construed as an entirety, militates against and destroys his bare denial that he threw the stone in question, while, upon the other hand, apparently credible eyewitnesses testified to seeing the accused east the missile that struck and killed the deceased.

Appellant complains of the alleged misconduct of attorneys upon the part of the state, consisting of remarks made by them in their argument to the jury. This contention, which is so earnestly discussed by his counsel, we cannot consider upon its merits, for two reasons: (1) The record does not disclose that the court, at the time the misconduct is said to have occurred, was called upon to rule on the question, upon objections being made by appellant. The rule of procedure and the steps necessary to be taken by a litigant who is aggrieved by the misconduct of opposing counsel are properly stated in Morrison v. State, 76 Ind. 335;Staser v. Hogan, 120 Ind. 207, 21 N. E. 911, and 22 N. E. 990;

[40 N.E. 526]

Coble v. Eltzroth, 125 Ind. 429, 25 N. E. 544;White v. Gregory, 126 Ind. 95, 25 N. E. 806; Railroad Co. v. Wrape, 4 Ind. App. 100, 30 N. E. 428;Vannatta v. Duffy, 4 Ind. App. 168, 30 N. E. 807. (2) The affidavits in support of the alleged grounds of misconduct assigned in the motion for a new trial are not in the record by a bill of exceptions or order of court. By reason of the facts that the record discloses no ruling of the court upon the matter of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
50 practice notes
  • Musser v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 25, 1901
    ...Swaim, 134 Ind. 596, 599, 33 N. E. 792, and cases cited; Woods v. Board, 128 Ind. 289, 292, 27 N. E. 611, and cases cited; Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 123, 40 N. E. 525;Strong v. State, 105 Ind. 1, 4 N. E. 293;Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. E. 491;Galvin v. State, 93 Ind. 550; Gillett, ......
  • State v. Burris, No. 35774.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1924
    ...474, 177 N. W. 54;State v. Browman, 191 Iowa, 608, 635, 182 N. W. 823;State v. Bird (Iowa) 194 N. W. 73, 74. See, also, Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 123, 40 N. E. 525, 527, where it is said: “It is not disclosed by the record that the statements of appellant to the jury were not referred to......
  • Bader v. State, No. 21,654.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 28, 1911
    ...court, and must presume that counsel for appellant made such argument as justified the giving of said instructions 7 and 8. Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 122, 123, 40 N. E. 525. [12] Instruction 6 given by the court informed the jury, if they believed from the evidence that appellant was gui......
  • State v. Shaver, No. 35263.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1924
    ...there can be no conviction of an assault and battery, or of an assault, such offenses being misdemeanors. See, also, Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 40 N. E. 525;Gillespie v. State, 9 Ind. 380;Wright v. State, 5 Ind. 527. By statute in some states the jury are not entitled to find defendant gu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
50 cases
  • Musser v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 25, 1901
    ...Swaim, 134 Ind. 596, 599, 33 N. E. 792, and cases cited; Woods v. Board, 128 Ind. 289, 292, 27 N. E. 611, and cases cited; Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 123, 40 N. E. 525;Strong v. State, 105 Ind. 1, 4 N. E. 293;Epps v. State, 102 Ind. 539, 1 N. E. 491;Galvin v. State, 93 Ind. 550; Gillett, ......
  • State v. Burris, No. 35774.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 4, 1924
    ...474, 177 N. W. 54;State v. Browman, 191 Iowa, 608, 635, 182 N. W. 823;State v. Bird (Iowa) 194 N. W. 73, 74. See, also, Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 123, 40 N. E. 525, 527, where it is said: “It is not disclosed by the record that the statements of appellant to the jury were not referred to......
  • Bader v. State, No. 21,654.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 28, 1911
    ...court, and must presume that counsel for appellant made such argument as justified the giving of said instructions 7 and 8. Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 122, 123, 40 N. E. 525. [12] Instruction 6 given by the court informed the jury, if they believed from the evidence that appellant was gui......
  • State v. Shaver, No. 35263.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 5, 1924
    ...there can be no conviction of an assault and battery, or of an assault, such offenses being misdemeanors. See, also, Reed v. State, 141 Ind. 116, 40 N. E. 525;Gillespie v. State, 9 Ind. 380;Wright v. State, 5 Ind. 527. By statute in some states the jury are not entitled to find defendant gu......
  • 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