State v. Brown , No. 26435.
| Docket Nº | No. 26435. |
| Citation | 196 N.E. 696, 208 Ind. 562 |
| Case Date | July 02, 1935 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
208 Ind. 562
196 N.E. 696
STATE
v.
BROWN.
No. 26435.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
July 2, 1935.
Omer W. Brown was indicted for altering, forging, and increasing a claim, made and filed in his office as county auditor, and causing presentation to county board of commissioners of false and fraudulent claim on account for services pretended to have been rendered by claimant, and, from a judgment quashing the indictment, the state appeals.
Affirmed.
[208 Ind. 562]Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; Alonzo L. Bales, Judge.
Russell E. Wise, of Union City, Nathan Mendenhall, of Winchester, Philip Lutz, Jr., of Boonville, and Ralph E. Hanna, of Delphi, for the State.
George H. Ward and Frederick S. Caldwell, both of Winchester, for appellee.
FANSLER, Judge.
The following indictment was returned against appellee:
‘The Grand Jury of Randolph County, in the State of Indiana, good and lawful men, duly and [208 Ind. 563]legally impanelled, charged and sworn to inquire into felonies and certain misdemeanors in and for the body of said County of Randolph in the name and by the authority of the State of Indiana, on their oath present that one Omer W. Brown, late of said County, on the 9th day of July, A. D. 1932, at said County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, and knowingly alter, change, forge, and increase a claim made and filed in the name of one Nellie G. Mills, Deputy Assessor of Green Township, Randolph County, Indiana, and did file the same in the office of Omer W. Brown, who was then and there the Auditor of Randolph County, Indiana, and did cause to be presented to the Board of Commissioners of said County, a certain false and fraudulent claim upon account for services alleged and pretended to have been rendered and furnished to said County by the said Nellie G. Mills, which said presented claim was in and of the following tenor, to-wit: (Here is set out the claim, with separate items showing the month, day, year, nature of the work performed, hours, and the amount of the claim for that day in dollars.) And that said claim was altered, changed, forged and increased by the said Omer W. Brown, by increasing the number of hours worked from April 26, 1932, to May 14th, 1932, inclusive, from 128 hours worked to 184 hours, when he, the said Omer W. Brown, well knew that the said Nellie G. Mills had not worked the said number of hours as was changed and increased on
[196 N.E. 697]
her claim by the said Omer W. Brown, and the said Omer W. Brown did the aforesaid acts with the unlawful, felonious...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackburn v. State, No. 370S43
...defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain and ......
-
Defries v. State, No. 975S223
...defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain and ......
-
Pruitt v. State, No. 1175A13
...defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain and ......
-
Holloway v. State, No. 3--975A213
...the accused shall have the right . . . to demand the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. . . .' State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696, said of this 'This means that the offense must be charged in direct and unmistakable terms. The charge must be such that the def......
-
Blackburn v. State, No. 370S43
...defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain and ......
-
Defries v. State, No. 975S223
...defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain and ......
-
Pruitt v. State, No. 1175A13
...defense and to assure that he will not twice be put in jeopardy for the same crime. Ind.Const. art. I, § 13; See State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696. However, certain details may be omitted and a motion to quash may properly be denied unless the indictment is so uncertain and ......
-
Holloway v. State, No. 3--975A213
...the accused shall have the right . . . to demand the nature and the cause of the accusation against him. . . .' State v. Brown (1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N.E. 696, said of this 'This means that the offense must be charged in direct and unmistakable terms. The charge must be such that the def......