Romeo v. State , No. 25570.

Docket NºNo. 25570.
Citation203 Ind. 116, 173 N.E. 324
Case DateNovember 18, 1930
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

203 Ind. 116
173 N.E. 324

ROMEO
v.
STATE.

No. 25570.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Nov. 18, 1930.


Appeal from Criminal Court, Lake County; Martin J. Smith, Judge.

Arasimo Romeo was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.

Reversed, with instructions.


McMahon & Conroy, of Hammond, for appellant.

Arthur L. Gilliom, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Gause, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.


WILLOUGHBY, C. J.

An indictment was returned by the grand jury against appellant charging him with murder in the first degree. The indictment charges as follows: “The Grand Jury of Lake County in the State of Indiana, good and lawful men, duly and legally impaneled, charged and sworn to inquire into felonies and certain misdemeanors in and for the body of said county of Lake, in the name and by the authority of the State of Indiana, on their oaths present that one Arasimo Romeo, late of said county, on the 9th day of September, A. D. 1927, at said county and state aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and with premeditated malice, kill and murder one Salvatore Bianco, by then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and with premeditated malice, shooting at and against and thereby mortally wounding the said Salvatore Bianco, with a certain deadly weapon, called a revolver, then and there loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls, which said revolver he, the said Arasimo Romeo, then and there had and held in his hands, of which mortal wounding the said Salvatore Bianco then and there instantly died. ***”

On a plea of not guilty appellant was tried by a jury and found guilty of murder in the second degree. A judgment was rendered on the verdict, and from such judgment this appeal is taken. The errors relied on for reversal are that the criminal court of Lake county erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. Also that the court erred in overruling appellant's supplemental motion for a new trial.

The appellant alleges that it was error for the court to give to the jury on its own motion instruction No. 8, which is as follows: “Manslaughter is now defined by statute in Indiana as follows: ‘Whoever unlawfully kills any human being without malice expressed or implied is guilty of manslaughter and on conviction shall be imprisoned in the state prison for not less than two nor more than twenty-one years.’ Manslaughter as now defined, includes every unlawful killing of a human being not embraced within the definitions of murder and involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter is now a separate crime and is the killing of a human being done involuntarily...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Barker v. State, No. 29554
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 22, 1958
    ...offense is stated in a separate court in the indictment or affidavit. Our attention is directed to the case of Romeo v. State, 1930, 203 Ind. 116, 173 N.E. 324, 325, which holds that one may be found guilty of manslaughter under the sole charge of murder in the first degree. We have examine......
  • Williams v. State, No. 968
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 29, 1969
    ...trial is upon an indictment for murder, there may be a conviction for either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Romeo v. State (1930), 203 Ind. 116, 173 N.E. 324; Pigg v. State (1896), 145 Ind. 560, 43 N.E. Although counsel for the State of Indiana asserts that appellant is not entitled......
  • Strack v. State , No. 25400.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 19, 1930
    ...judgment is that appellant “be and he is hereby sentenced to and imprisoned in the Indiana state prison for a term of not less than two [173 N.E. 324]years nor more than fourteen years, as a punishment for said offense charged in the indictment, and that he pay and satisfy the costs and cha......
  • Mimms v. State, No. 30797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 27, 1967
    ...such well established precedent. The change, if desirable, must come from the legislature.' (The Court referred to Romeo v. State, (1930), 203 Ind. 116, 173 N.E. 324 and Barnett v. State (1885), 100 Ind. 171.) Barker v. State, supra, also cites with authority, Fausett v. State (1941), 219 I......
4 cases
  • Barker v. State, No. 29554
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 22, 1958
    ...offense is stated in a separate court in the indictment or affidavit. Our attention is directed to the case of Romeo v. State, 1930, 203 Ind. 116, 173 N.E. 324, 325, which holds that one may be found guilty of manslaughter under the sole charge of murder in the first degree. We have examine......
  • Williams v. State, No. 968
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 29, 1969
    ...trial is upon an indictment for murder, there may be a conviction for either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Romeo v. State (1930), 203 Ind. 116, 173 N.E. 324; Pigg v. State (1896), 145 Ind. 560, 43 N.E. Although counsel for the State of Indiana asserts that appellant is not entitled......
  • Strack v. State , No. 25400.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 19, 1930
    ...judgment is that appellant “be and he is hereby sentenced to and imprisoned in the Indiana state prison for a term of not less than two [173 N.E. 324]years nor more than fourteen years, as a punishment for said offense charged in the indictment, and that he pay and satisfy the costs and cha......
  • Mimms v. State, No. 30797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 27, 1967
    ...such well established precedent. The change, if desirable, must come from the legislature.' (The Court referred to Romeo v. State, (1930), 203 Ind. 116, 173 N.E. 324 and Barnett v. State (1885), 100 Ind. 171.) Barker v. State, supra, also cites with authority, Fausett v. State (1941), 219 I......

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