Steele v. State
| Decision Date | 05 September 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30615,30615 |
| Citation | 229 N.E.2d 237,249 Ind. 81 |
| Parties | Donald Eugene STEELE and Damon Ray Woods, Appellants, v. The STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Chester H. Wilson, Indianapolis, for appellants.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Edwin K. Steers, former Atty. Gen., David S. Wedding, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal by Donald Eugene Steele and Damon Ray Woods from the verdict and the judgment of the Criminal Court of Marion County, Division Number One, by which each of the appellants was convicted of the crime of manslaughter. The indictment which charged the appellants with the offense of first degree murder, pursuant to Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno., § 10--3401, (1956 Repl.), reads as follows, omitting the formal parts:
'The Grand Jury for the County of Marion in the State of Indiana, upon their oath do present that DONALD EUGENE STEELE and DAMON RAY WOODS on or about the 31st day of December, A.D.1961, at and in the County of Marion and in the State of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and with premeditated malice kill and murder, JOHNNY CASTILLO, a human being, by then and there unlawfully and feloniously, purposely and with premediated malice, striking and beating at and against the body of the said JOHNNY CASTILLO, with a ball bat, and did then and there and thereby inflict a mortal wound in and upon the body of the said JOHNNY CASTILLO, of which mortal wound the said JOHNNY CASTILLO then and there and thereby died.
And so the Grand Jurors aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do say and charge that the said DONALD EUGENE STEELE and DAMON RAY WOODS, in the manner and form and by the means aforesaid, unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and with premeditated malice did kill and murder the said JOHNNY CASTILLO, then and there being.'
The conviction for manslaughter was pursuant to Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno., § 10--3405 (1956 Repl.).
Appellants assign as error the overruling of their motion for new trial. The appellants' first two grounds set out in their motion for new trial are:
'(1).
That the finding of the Court is contrary to law.
(2).
That the finding of the Court and Jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.'
Appellee points out that the above two grounds of appellants' motion for new trial are not in the proper statutory form, pursuant to Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 282, Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno., § 9--1903 (1956 Repl.). This case was heard before a jury and, therefore, there was no verdict of the court as appellants' motion for a new trial states. This Court has held in other cases that deviations from the statutory rule presents no question on appeal. Volderauer v. State (1924), 195 Ind. 415, 143 N.E. 674; Adkins v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 81, 123 N.E.2d 891.
In looking at the evidence, this Court only gives consideration to that part most favorable to the State, together with all reasonable and logical inferences that may be drawn therefrom. Beatty v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 598, 194 N.E.2d 727; Grimes v. State (1963), 244 Ind. 68, 190 N.E.2d 663.
Four individuals were involved in a set of circumstances which led to the death of the victim, Johnny Castillo. The appellants, Steele and Woods, were aligned on the one side and the victim and his companion on the other side. While the four were in a bar an argument arose between the appellants and the decedent. The victim's companion struck Woods, and the appellants were asked to leave the bar. They left, but waited outside for the victim and his companion for about one-half hour. When the victim and his companion made an exit from the bar room, the appellants attacked them. Appellant Steele used a baseball bat as a weapon in this altercation. The victim, Castillo, died as a result of a skull fracture suffered from the blows of the baseball bat. His companion suffered certain wounds as well.
The appellants raise the question of sufficiency of evidence, and more specifically they argue that there is insufficient evidence to prove either of the appellants guilty of the crime of manslaughter. The argument is made that since appellant Woods did not use a lethal weapon (baseball bat), he was not guilty of the crime of manslaughter.
We consider the argument of the appellant Woods. The mere presence of an accused at the time and place of the crime alleged is not sufficient to make such accused guilty. Schaffer v. State (1930), 202 Ind. 318, 173 N.E. 229. We do have, however, the fact that appellant Woods was not only present with appellant Steele, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Shack v. State
-
Watson v. State
...engaged in an unlawful act, are equally criminal responsible. Atherton v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 354, 229 N.E.2d 239; Steele v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 81, 229 N.E.2d 237; White v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 290, 37 N.E.2d Appellant also notes in passing that there were no showing that Vincent w......
-
Rogers v. State
...of any evidence in the record of any attempt of the appellant to abandon her confederates on the unlawful venture.' Steele v. State (1967), Ind., 229 N.E.2d 237, reads as '* * * The mere presence of an accused at the time and place of the crime alleged is not sufficient to make such accused......