Schneider v. State

• Decision Date: 17 February 1914
• Docket Number: 22,408
• Citation: 104 N.E. 69,181 Ind. 218
• Parties: Schneider v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

104 N.E. 69

181 Ind. 218

Schneider v. State of Indiana

No. 22,408

Supreme Court of Indiana

February 17, 1914

From Criminal Court of Marion County; Joseph T. Markey, Judge.

Prosecution by the State of Indiana against George Schneider. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Alvah J. Rucker, James E. Rocap, Harry E. Yockey and Clarence R. Martin, for appellant.

Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, and Thomas H. Branaman, for the State.

OPINION

Erwin, J.

This was a prosecution by the State against appellant charging him by affidavit, with the crime of assault and battery on the person of one Fred Wahl. To this affidavit appellant entered a plea of not guilty. The cause was submitted to the court without the intervention of a jury. The court found appellant guilty as charged and assessed a fine of $ 100 and costs of prosecution.

Appellant filed a motion for new trial on the grounds that the finding and judgment of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. The facts as shown by the evidence are that appellant ran an automobile against the person of the injured party thereby committing the crime charged. It is settled by the decisions of this court that an assault and battery may be committed by hitting another with an automobile. Luther v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 619, 624, 98 N.E. 640.

The only contention of appellant is that the evidence fails to show any intent on the part of the appellant, to unlawfully strike the injured party. Intent in a criminal case is a question of fact to be determined by the court or jury trying the case, from all the evidence introduced on the trial, and where there is some evidence sufficient to present an issue of fact, and that issue having been decided by the court or jury to which it was submitted, this court has no power to question that finding. It is contended by appellant that Luther v. State, supra, is decisive of the question that there was no intent to commit the assault and battery. This court decided that there was no issue of fact joined in that case and that the uncontroverted facts showed there was no intent to commit a crime. In this case, no question of law is presented for the decision of this court and therefore the judgment must be affirmed. Judgment affirmed.