Robb v. State
| Decision Date | 17 April 1896 |
| Parties | ROBB v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
ROBB
v.
STATE.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 17, 1896.
Appeal from circuit court, Boone county; Stephen Neal, Judge.
Charles E. Robb was indicted for murder in the first degree, and was convicted of manslaughter. From a judgment on the verdict, the prisoner appeals. Affirmed.
Thomas Hanna, Isaac N. Bradwell, and R. W. Harrison, for appellant. Wm. A. Ketcham, Atty. Gen., for the State.
HACKNEY, C. J.
The appellant, Charles E. Robb, was charged by indictment with the crime of murder in the first degree, in the killing of Eli Wilson. Upon the trial he was convicted of manslaughter, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the state's prison for 15 years. The questions presented in this court arise upon the action of the lower court in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial. While conceding that
[43 N.E. 643]
it is contrary to the established practice for this court to pass upon conflicts in the evidence, it is insisted that we should do so in this case. We have looked into the evidence sufficiently to assure ourselves that there was evidence which, if without conflict, would support the conviction. It appears, without conflict, that the deceased was a tenant of the appellant, occupying a part of the house occupied by the appellant; that he became indebted for rents, and, when called upon to pay, urged his inability to do so; that some hot words ensued, and that the appellant went into his part of the house, procured his two pistols, and returned to the back lot, and shot and killed Wilson, who was standing in, or upon the inside, and near, the back door of his part of the house. The essential point of conflict in the evidence was as to whether, at the instant of the shooting, Wilson had in his hand, in a threatening attitude, some instrument resembling a pistol, and which Robb believed to imperil his life. There was evidence against the theory of Wilson's possession of any such instrument, and which, standing alone, would have supported the conclusion that, when Robb returned with the pistols, Wilson was not offering, by word or action, any violence towards Robb, but was standing inside, and near the door, in the act of taking a tin cup of drinking water from a bucket upon a small table, when Robb fired the fatal shot. We would certainly usurp the exclusive function of the jury, should we attempt to review their conclusion upon this conflict. Deal v. State, 140 Ind. 354, 39 N. E. 930, and cases there cited.
The motion for a new...
To continue reading
Request your trial