Robinson v. State, No. 30120
| Docket Nº | No. 30120 |
| Citation | 184 N.E.2d 16, 243 Ind. 192 |
| Case Date | July 05, 1962 |
Page 16
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
[243 Ind. 193] Orr & Bridwell, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Carl E. Van Dorn, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
LANDIS, Justice.
Appellant here was indicted for murder in the first degree. After a trial by jury he was convicted[243 Ind. 194] of murder in the second degree. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Page 17
Error is assigned on the overruling of his motion for new trial on the grounds that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence and was contrary to law.
To consider the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict it is necessary that we consider the evidence most favorable to appellee, which was as follows.
Decedent and Peggy Ann Dyer were married in 1957 and separated in about September of 1958, at which time deceased moved to his grandmother's home. Decedent and his wife remained on friendly terms and decedent visited his small son once a week.
Peggy Ann Dyer testified she had known appellant prior to her marriage and that she started to date appellant two or three months after the separation. During this time appellant stayed for two weeks at the premises at 2402 Guilford, Indianapolis, where Peggy Ann Dyer was living with her parents, with appellant sleeping on the living room couch. Peggy Ann Dyer acknowledged that at various times she had sexual relations with appellant at a hotel.
Appellant who had been married to one Odessa Robinson since 1950 testified he first dated Peggy Ann Dyer in 1952 and that he had since that date continued to meet secretly with her. Appellant stated that after the separation he was first invited to stay at the home by Mrs. Stratten, Peggy's mother, and that he thereupon occupied Peggy Ann's bedroom with Peggy Ann and started living with her as husband and wife until December 26, 1959, the date of the homicide.
[243 Ind. 195] On Christmas Day 1959, appellant, Peggy Ann Dyer and her family were together at 2402 Guilford and in the afternoon deceased came to the house to bring a Christmas present for his small son. All remained until 2:30 or 3:00 a. m. December 26, when appellant, deceased, Peggy Dyer, Paul Reeves and his girl friend went to a party at Biggerstaff's home in Indianapolis. After staying a short while, appellant drove Peggy Dyer home during which trip Peggy states she told appellant that she and her husband were planning to go back together the first of the year.
After being thus notified his relationship with Mrs. Dyer was about to end, appellant started to beat Mrs. Dyer with an iron pipe, and as the automobile approached her home she jumped from the car. When appellant followed, Mrs. Dyer stated she screamed and her father and deceased came to her rescue. As a result of the beating administered by appellant Mrs. Dyer lost three teeth and was cut about the head and was taken to the hospital. She returned from the hospital with her deceased husband at 10:00 a. m. on December 26, 1959.
According to appellant's testimony he entered the house soon after Mrs. Dyer left his auto on December 26. He was awakened when the Dyers returned from the hospital and he heard some conversations downstairs, at which time he moved into the attic room where he fell asleep.
After returning from the hospital deceased and Mrs. Dyer went upstairs to rest. In the bedroom there were two doors, one to the attic and one to the hall. Soon after Mrs. Dyer went upstairs to rest, two police officers came to the house at 2402 Guilford to talk to her concerning the attack made upon her.
[243 Ind. 196] After talking with the officers Mrs. Dyer returned to her bedroom and noticed her husband was still asleep but that the attic door was slightly ajar. When she attempted to close the door, the appellant jumped out with an ice pick in his hand. According to Peggy Dyer appellant then stabbed her in the right shoulder and back. She then ran down the stairs.
Mrs. Stratten, Peggy's mother, testified she heard Peggy scream, 'Jerry is up
Page 18
here,'...To continue reading
Request your trial
-
White v. State, No. 867S74
...the homicidal act was not carried out in self defense is a question of ultimate fact to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d After the jury has made this determination in favor of the State and against the defendant, this Court, on appeal, '* * * has up......
-
Nuss v. State, No. 1--874A123
...was not carried out in self-defense is a question of ultimate fact [164 Ind.App. 403] to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d After the jury has made this determination in favor of the State and against the defendant, this Court, on appeal: '* * * has u......
-
Sanders v. State, No. 1080S385
...See Harris v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 672, 382 N.E.2d 913; Hester v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 697, 373 N.E.2d 141; Robinson v. State, (1962) 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d 16. In doing so, they were free to disbelieve defendant's testimony. Hill v. State, (1979) Ind. 394 N.E.2d 132, 135; Taggart v. ......
-
Woods v. State, No. 2--1173A250
...the homicidal act was not carried out in self-defense is a question of ultimate fact to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d 16. After the jury has made this determination in favor of the State and against the defendant, this Court, on '. . . has upon i......
-
Nuss v. State, 1--874A123
...was not carried out in self-defense is a question of ultimate fact [164 Ind.App. 403] to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d After the jury has made this determination in favor of the State and against the defendant, this Court, on appeal: '* * * has u......
-
Sanders v. State, 1080S385
...See Harris v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 672, 382 N.E.2d 913; Hester v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 697, 373 N.E.2d 141; Robinson v. State, (1962) 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d 16. In doing so, they were free to disbelieve defendant's testimony. Hill v. State, (1979) Ind. 394 N.E.2d 132, 135; Taggart v. ......
-
White v. State, 867S74
...the homicidal act was not carried out in self defense is a question of ultimate fact to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d After the jury has made this determination in favor of the State and against the defendant, this Court, on appeal, '* * * has up......
-
Helms v. State, 31140
...the homicidal act was not carried out in self-defense is a question of ultimate fact to be decided by the jury. Robinson v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d 16.' 234 N.E.2d at The State's evidence in this case, as summarized above, easily supports inferences that the appellant did not......