State v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 25 January 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 29649,29649 |
| Citation | 240 Ind. 274,163 N.E.2d 745 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. Elizabeth Hazeltine SULLIVAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Merl M. Wall, Asst. Atty. Gen., John G. Tinder, Prosecuting Atty., 19th Judicial Circuit, Indianapolis, Eugene B. Burns, Prosecuting Atty., 20th Judicial Circuit, Lebanon, William T. Sharp, George P. Rice, Jr., Deputy Prosecuting Attys., Indianapolis, for appellant.
George R. Jeffrey, Indianapolis, Robert L. Stevenson, Columbus, Ben M. Scifres, Lebanon, for appellee.
Appellee was indicted for voluntary manslaughter in the death of her husband, Julian T. Sullivan. The lower Court sustained a motion for directed verdict in appellee's favor and rendered judgment of acquittal thereon. This is an appeal by the State on a reserved question of law under the provisions of the fourth clause of Burns' § 9-2304 (1956 Replacement), Acts 1905, ch. 169, § 325, p. 584; 1955, ch. 315, § 1, p. 968. Appellant's only assigned error is that the trial court erred in sustaining appellee's motion for directed verdict of acquittal. 1 The basis for such motion to instruct was that (a) the prosecution failed to prove a corpus delicti, and (b) the prosecution failed to prove the element of intent to the degree required by law for the doctrine of reasonable doubt.
A review of the evidence necessary for a consideration of these matters follows:
Defendant and appellee were husband and wife and on December 22, 1954, were guests with some other 16 persons at a Christmas party in the city of Indianapolis. Refreshments were served consisting of sandwiches and 'confederate punch' made up of fruit juice, wine, bourbon and sparking water. The Sullivans (decedent and appellee) arrived at the party about 8:30 p. m. and left about 2:00 a. m. during which time Mrs. Sullivan consumed about two glasses of punch. Mr. Sullivan had a good deal more, and witnesses stated he acted in a boisterous and merry manner in contrast to the retiring, serious minded person he had seemed on previous occasions.
While at the party Mr. Sullivan received a telephone call from the Indianapolis Star, by whom he was employed as a dramatic critic, and in such telephone conversation Mr. Sullivan is stated to have engaged in cursing language and was angry and snarling in demeanor. Mrs. Sullivan seemed congenial at the party and was proud of her husband and his knowledge of music and as a critic. She talked about their plans for Christmas and about the baby things they had gotten for their one year old child. Her husband, however, was described by witnesses as being out of character, and wanted to be boss of the party and just took charge. He had been drinking quite a bit and took two or three fast drinks. His wife tried to get him to go home earlier and he was peeved at her. He was very unhappy about something and remarked to her, 'I'll show you that you're not so G___ D___ right all the time.'
On the way home in the car the Sullivans quarrelled in the presence of another guest, and the husband (referring to his wife) is stated to have said: 'That stinker in the back seat, when she tells you something you better check on it.'
At about 2:30 a. m. Mrs. Sullivan telephoned from the Sullivan home for a Dr. Kendrick. The doctor arrived about 3:00 a. m. and found Sullivan lying dead in the floor of the dining room. He had a knife wound in the vicinity of his stomach. Mrs. Sullivan appeared much upset and paced around. The doctor called the police and told her she should call a lawyer.
The rest of the evidence consisted of statements made by appellee to the investigating officers, and was to the effect that appellee and her husband arrived home from the party at about 2:00 a. m.; that she changed into her bathrobe, was drinking a beer and reading a magazine when her husband came up from fixing the furnace; that he took off his tie, shirt and vest, and an argument started; that both of them had tempers and they struck each other, that he slapped her face and knocked her down three or four times, breaking articles and upsetting the bottle of beer she had been drinking; that appellee and her husband fought on various occasions and she usually won the fights; that the husband went to the kitchen and got a paring knife, and said that 'if there was to be a fight, let's make it a good one,' and that 'this was one fight he was going to win.' They struggled in the dining room and both appellee and her husband had their hands on the knife, and during the fight the husband was stabbed, that appellee had the knife in her hand as he fell to the floor, that she didn't know how she got the knife into her hand, that he said he was hurt and asked her to call a doctor, which she did; that she took the knife to the kitchen, rinsed it off and placed it in the kitchen cabinet; that the two puncture wounds in decedent's right ear were made by appellee biting him, that she must also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopkins v. State, 3--1272A96
...proof necessary to sustain a conviction. The Supreme Court of Indiana made this distinction quite clear in State v. Sullivan (1960), 240 Ind. 274, 278--279, 163 N.E.2d 745, 747; 'The correct rule as to proof of the corpus delicti is stated in 8 West's Ind. Law Ency. Criminal Law § 266, as f......
- Goff v. State, 29784
-
Robinson v. State
...upon such evidence as here presented we cannot disturb the jury's verdict. The case is entirely distinguishable from State v. Sullivan (1960), 240 Ind. 274, 163 N.E.2d 745, where the evidence unquestionably showed the deceased himself injected the knife into the altercation with his wife wh......
-
Chowning v. State
...to the corpus delicti proven by the prosecution that one man was present at the alleged burglary.' In State v. Sullivan (1960), 240 Ind. 274, at 278--279, 163 N.E.2d 745, at 747--748, it is stated: 'The correct rule as to proof of the corpus delicti is stated in 8 West's Ind. Law Ency. Crim......