Sharp v. The State
| Decision Date | 14 October 1903 |
| Docket Number | 20,166 |
| Citation | 68 N.E. 286,161 Ind. 288 |
| Parties | Sharp v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From Gibson Circuit Court; H. A. Yeager, Special Judge.
Edward Sharp was convicted of sodomy, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
J. Q A. Goodman and C. A. Buskirk, for appellant.
C. W Miller, Attorney-General, C. C. Hadley, W. C. Geake, L. G Rothschild and W. Espenschied, for State.
Appellant was charged by indictment with having committed the crime of sodomy, by violating the provisions of § 2092 Burns 1901, § 2005 Horner 1901. To the accusation he pleaded not guilty, and in addition to this interposed a written plea averring therein that at the date of the commission of the alleged offense he was a person of unsound mind. He was tried by a jury and found guilty, and, over his motion for a new trial, was sentenced to be imprisoned in the state prison for not over fourteen, nor less than two years.
The sole insistence of his counsel in this appeal is that the court erred in giving and in refusing certain instructions, and that the evidence is not sufficient to warrant the jury in finding against him upon the issue of his insanity. The instructions given and refused are not made a part of the record by a proper bill of exceptions. Consequently no question which appellant's counsel attempt to present on the rulings of the court, in either giving instructions or in denying those requested, is before us for review. It is true that an effort has been made to make the instructions a part of the original bill of exceptions embracing the longhand manuscript of the evidence, but it has been settled by repeated holdings of this court that this method is not available for making instructions given or refused by the trial court a part of the record on appeal to either the Supreme or Appellate Court. Carlson v. State, 145 Ind. 650, 44 N.E. 660; Adams v. State, 156 Ind. 596, 59 N.E. 24, and cases cited.
The evidence shows beyond controversy that appellant committed what the statute properly declares to be "the abominable and detestable crime against nature" by having carnal knowledge of a beast, viz., a Shetland female pony. Numerous witnesses testified for and against the accused upon the question of his insanity at the time he perpetrated the alleged offense, and his counsel earnestly insist that upon this, under the evidence in the case, the jury ought to have found in his favor, and acquitted him of the crime charged. Counsel, however, seemingly overlook the rule established by many decisions of this court that the jurors in a criminal cause are not only the exclusive judges of the facts proved on the trial, but are also the exclusive judges of all inferences that may be drawn therefrom. The fact of appellant's insanity, when put in issue by the method prescribed by our criminal code, is to be considered and determined by the jury in like manner as any other material fact in the case, and on appeal is governed by the same rule, which forbids us to weigh the evidence upon any question of fact determined by the jury or court trying the case. Although the evidence upon the issue of the insanity of the accused party in a criminal case may be weak and possess but little weight, still if it is of such a character that the jury may have reasonably inferred therefrom that he was, within the contemplation of law, of sound mind at the time he committed the offense, then the question of his insanity, upon the evidence, under the circumstances is not one open to review by this court on appeal. Lee v. State, 156 Ind. 541, 60 N.E. 299; Blume v. State, 154 Ind. 343, 56 N.E. 771; Rinkard...
To continue reading
Request your trial