Sims v. The State

Decision Date31 January 1894
Docket Number17,178
Citation36 N.E. 278,136 Ind. 358
PartiesSims v. The State
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

From the Henry Circuit Court.

Judgment is affirmed.

J. M Morris, for appellant.

A. G Smith, Attorney-General, and F. T. Edenharter, for State.

OPINION

McCabe, J.

The appellant was tried, convicted of burglary, and sentenced to the State prison for four years, in the court below, on the following indictment:

"The grand jurors of said State of Indiana, impaneled, charged, and sworn in the Henry Circuit Court, to inquire within and for the body of said county of Henry, upon their oath, charge and present that George Sims, on the 10th day of July, 1893, at said county and State, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, burglariously, and forcibly, in the night time, break and enter the dwelling house of Robert Overman, then and there situate, with intent, then and there and thereby, feloniously, burglariously, and forcibly to steal, take and carry away the goods, chattels, and property of said Robert Overman, therein contained, contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana."

The first assignment of error calls in question the action of the trial court in overruling a motion to quash the indictment.

The only objection urged to the indictment is that it charges the intent to have been "to steal, take and carry away the goods, chattels, and property of said Robert Overman;" it is insisted that the word "property" includes both real estate, as well as "goods and chattels," and that real estate is not subject to larceny; and hence, if the pleader meant real estate by the use of the word "property," it charged an impossible intent. And it is contended that inasmuch as it is not certain which kind of property was intended to be stolen, the indictment is too uncertain as to the crime intended to be charged. It will be observed that it is the act and intent that constitute the offense. The act was breaking into the dwelling house; the intent is charged to have been to steal, take, and carry away the goods, chattels, and property of said Overman. 1 Burns' Revision of 1894, section 2002.

The statute provides that "no indictment or information shall be deemed invalid, nor shall the same be set aside or quashed * * for any of the following defects: * * * For any surplusage or repugnant allegation, when there is sufficient matter alleged to indicate the crime and the person charged." Section 1825, Burns' Revision of 1894.

By leaving out the word "property" in the indictment it will leave a perfect indictment, and this section of the statute requires us, in such a case, to treat the word as surplusage, and forbids us to set aside or quash the same for such defect. Trout v. State, 111 Ind. 499...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Gaines v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1921
    ...165 of the Acts of 1915, which defines burglary in the first degree. See Acts 1915, p. 619. Edwards v. State, 62 Ind. 34;Sims v. State, 136 Ind. 358, 36 N. E. 278;Choen v. State, 85 Ind. 209;Hunter v. State, 29 Ind. 80;Barnhardt v. State, 154 Ind. 177, 56 N. E. 212;Ewing v. State, 131 N. E.......
  • Gaines v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 27, 1921
    ... ... first count of the affidavit in this case alleges every fact ... necessary to show a violation of the first section of the act ... of 1915, supra, which defines burglary in the first ... degree. See Acts 1915 p. 619, supra; ... Edwards v. State (1878), 62 Ind. 34; ... Sims v. State (1894), 136 Ind. 358, 36 N.E ... 278; Choen v. State (1882), 85 Ind. 209; ... Hunter v. State (1867), 29 Ind. 80; ... Barnhart v. State (1900), 154 Ind. 177, 56 ... N.E. 212; Ewing v. State (1921), 190 Ind ... 565, 131 N.E. 43 ...           [191 ... Ind. 266] This count ... ...
  • Cockerham v. State, 30612
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 2, 1965
    ...466, 113 N.E.2d 43. Opening an unlocked door or raising an unlocked window is sufficient to constitute a breaking. In Sims v. State (1893), 136 Ind. 358, 36 N.E. 278, the appellant merely removed a wire screen which took but the very slightest effort. Nevertheless, such act was sufficient t......
  • Barrick v. State, 29148
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1954
    ...aside of any material part of the building intended as a security against invasion, such as removing a window screen, Sims v. State, 1894, 136 Ind. 358, 36 N.E. 278, breaking of a canvas shutter, Grimes v. State of Georgia, 1886, 77 Ga. 762, or opening a closed door. Commonwealth v. Mackey,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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