State v. Patsel
| Decision Date | 11 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 29743,29743 |
| Citation | 163 N.E.2d 602,240 Ind. 240 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. Raymond PATSEL, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edwin R. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., Donald K. Travis, Prox. Atty., Marshall F. Rizer, Asst. Pros. Atty., Plymouth, for appellant.
Galeman Dexter, Albert B. Chipman, Plymouth, for appellee.
This is an appeal by the State of Indiana from a judgment of the trial court in a criminal case, sustaining the appellee's motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the state's evidence and before any evidence was introduced on behalf of the appellee.
The appellee was charged by indictment in six counts, the first three of which charged the appellee with feloniously, falsely and fraudulently making, forging and counterfeiting a certain last will and testament purporting to have been made by one Amanda Harley; the last three of said counts charging the appellee with unlawfully, feloniously, fraudulently and knowingly uttering, publishing, offering and petitioning for probate in the Marshall Circuit Court of Marshall County, Indiana, a certain false, forged and counterfeit last will and testament purporting to have been made and executed by one Amanda Harley.
Thereafter the appellee filed his motion to quash all six counts of the indictment for the following reasons,
'(1) The facts stated in said indictment, and in each of the six counts thereof, separately and severally, do not constitute a public offense.
'(2) Said indictment and each of the six counts thereof separately and severally, does not state the offense charged with sufficient certainty.'
The court overruled the appellee's motion as to counts one and four and sustained it as to counts two, three, five and six. Appellee thereupon waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty to counts one and four of the indictment.
The pertinent parts of the counts of the indictment to which the appellee pleaded and on which he stood trial read as follows, to wit:
'Count One: * * * that Raymond Patsel, late of said County, on the First Day of May, 1957, at said County and State aforesaid, did then and there feloniously, falsely and fraudulently make, forge and counterfeit a certain Last Will and Testament purporting to have been made and executed by Amanda Harley, * * *. * * * with intent then and there and thereby feloniously, falsely and fraudulently to defraud the estate of Amanda Harley, Contrary to the form of the Statute in such cases made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.'
'Count Four: And the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, for a fourth count do further present that Raymond Patsel, late of said County, on the 4th day of October, 1957, at said County and State aforesaid, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, fraudulently and knowingly utter, publish, offer and petition for probate to the Marshall Circuit Court of Marshall County, State of Indiana, as true and genuine a certain false, forged and counterfeit last will and testament, said pretended last will and testament purporting to have been made and executed by one Amanda Harley, * * * with intent then and there and thereby feloniously, falsely and fraudulently to defraud the estate of Amanda Harley, he, the said Raymond Patsel, then and there well knowing the said last will and testament to be false, forged and counterfeit, 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 record discloses that Amanda Harley died on September 30, 1957, domiciled in and a resident of Marshall County, Indiana. That the petition for probate of her alleged will and issuance of letters testamentary was signed by Raymond Patsel, appellee, on October 4, 1957, and on the same day filed in the Marshall Circuit Court, whereupon said alleged will was in said court admitted to probate and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lewis
...388, 28 N.E.2d 70 (appeal sustained), State v. Schroeppel, (1959) 240 Ind. 185, 162 N.E.2d 683 (appeal sustained), State v. Patsel, (1959) 240 Ind. 240, 163 N.E.2d 602 (appeal There is no difference between a judgment on the evidence granted before the case is given to the jury and one afte......
-
Brown v. State
...of the province of the jury for the court to direct a verdict. Davis v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 596, 233 N.E.2d 642; State v. Patsel (1960), 240 Ind. 240, 163 N.E.2d 602; State v. Torphy (1940), 217 Ind. 383, 28 N.E.2d 70; State v. Kubiak (1936), 210 Ind. 479, 4 N.E.2d In Green v. State (196......
-
Tait v. State, 30164
...to the State, and the inferences to be drawn therefrom, did not justify a directed verdict of not guilty. In State v. Patsel (1960), 240 Ind. 240, 245, 163 N.E.2d 602, 604, this court reiterated what was said in State v. Torphy (1940), 217 Ind. 383, 388, 28 N.E.2d 70, "It is thoroughly sett......
-
Franklin v. State
...the credibility of witnesses, it is improper to direct a verdict. Davis v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 54, 233 N.E2d 642; State v. Patsel, (1960) 240 Ind. 240, 163 N.E.2d 602; State v. Torphy, (1940), 217 Ind. 383, 28 N.E.2d " * * * Although the State was required to prove the absence of self de......