Swope v. State, 27655.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 27655.,27655. |
| Parties | SWOPE v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Eugene Swope was convicted of an offense under an indictment charging a violation of Burns' Ann.St. §§ 47-1910, 47-1912, and he appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Criminal Court, Marion County; Floyd R. Mannon, Special judge.
Peter A. Cancilla, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
George N. Beamer, Atty. Gen., James K. Northam, First Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis N. Hamilton, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by grand jury indictment, charging a violation of Secs. 47-1910, 47-1912, Burns' Ind.St.Ann.1933, Sec. 11189-49, 11189-51, Baldwin's Ind. Statute 1939 Supplement, Ch. 48, Secs. 39 and 41, Acts 1939, p. 289.
The first of the above sections requires the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to, or death of any person, to immediately stop such vehicle at the scene of the accident, and to forthwith return to and in every event to remain at the scene until he has fulfilled the requirements of Section 41 (Sec. 47-1912, Sec. 11189-51, Baldwin's Ind.Statute 1939 Supplement).
The second section above mentioned (Sec. 47-1912, Sec. 11189-51, Baldwin's (provides that such driver give his name, address, and the registration number of his car to the person struck or injured, and shall render to any person injured in such accident reasonable assistance, etc.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty, and waived jury trial. The court found the appellant guilty and overruled his motion for a new trial, and also supplemental motion for a new trial.
The only error assigned on this appeal is the overruling of the motion for a new trial, and the supplemental motion for a new trial. The only reason properly assigned in said motion is that the ‘finding of the court is contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence.’
In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will consider only that evidence most favorable to the state. The evidence introduced disclosed the following facts: On the night of October 5, 1940, appellant drove his automobile northeasterly over and along Massachusetts Avenue in the city of Indianapolis at a high rate of speed; that it was raining and the streets slippery; that two men, William Cox and Nicholas Santieu, stepped out from between two automobiles parked along the east side of Massachusetts Avenue in front of appellant's car. Appellant's car struck the two men,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. State
...thus created was for the determination of the trial court. On appeal, the applicable rule is correctly stated in Swope v. State, 1942, 220 Ind. 40, 42, 39 N.E.2d 947, where it is said: 'In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will consider only that evidence most favorab......
-
Collins v. State, 28223.
...thus created was for the determination of the trial court. On appeal, the applicable rule is correctly stated in Swope v. State, 1942, 220 Ind. 40, 42, 39 N.E.2d 947, where it is said: ‘In passing upon the sufficiency of the evidence, this court will consider only that evidence most favorab......