Shoecraft v. The State
| Decision Date | 06 April 1894 |
| Docket Number | 17,201 |
| Citation | 36 N.E. 1113,137 Ind. 433 |
| Parties | Shoecraft v. The State |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
From the Henry Circuit Court.
Judgment reversed, with directions to grant a new trial.
J Brown and W. A. Brown, for appellant.
A. G Smith, Attorney-General, and F. E. Beach, Prosecuting Attorney, for State.
The appellant was indicted for robbery, to wit, the violent taking from the prosecuting witness of a silver watch of the value of ten dollars. His defense on the trial was, that he had won the watch from the prosecuting witness in a game at cards. The evidence was conflicting.
The jury found a verdict of guilty, fixing the punishment at imprisonment in the State prison for two years, with fine and disfranchisement.
Over a motion for a new trial the court rendered judgment on the verdict.
It appears that the robbery, or game of cards, whichever it may have been, took place near a cemetery about two squares from the union depot, in the city of New Castle.
The witness, William S. Tuturow, testified that he was at the union depot shortly after the time of the transaction complained of; and that the prosecuting witness, Wesley Craig, "came walking up the track pretty rapidly and said he was robbed," * * that "he had been robbed of his watch and some money." And, being asked who did it, "He said it was Shoecraft and Griffin and Greiner,"--the last two being companions of the appellant.
This testimony was objected to as hearsay evidence, a report of words used in the absence of the appellant. The evidence was, however, admitted by the court.
Similar testimony was given over the objection of the appellant, by John S. Byer, a railroad agent, who was at the time engaged about the station.
The following question asked of this witness was objected to: "You may state whether or not you saw Wesley Craig there, and if so what he said to you?"
The court overruled the objection to the question, saying:
"Well, I think that the whole transaction, according to the testimony of the last witness, Mr. Tuturow, is admitted upon the theory that it is a part of the same transaction, and a part of the res gestae."
The witness then answered that Wesley Craig, the prosecuting witness, said, "I have been robbed."
These reported statements of the prosecuting witness were made at a place two squares away from the place where the alleged robbery is said to have taken place, some time after that occurrence, and in the absence of the appellant who was charged with the offense.
In Hall v. State, 132 Ind. 317, 31 N.E. 536 where the defendant was indicted for murder, for administering poison to the deceased, it was held that declarations made by the deceased to his wife, in the absence of the defendant, and some time after the occurrence, to the effect that the defendant had...
To continue reading
Request your trial