Thompson v. State, 28163.
| Decision Date | 21 May 1946 |
| Docket Number | No. 28163.,28163. |
| Citation | 224 Ind. 290,66 N.E.2d 597 |
| Parties | THOMPSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Joshua Thompson, Jr. was convicted of assault and battery with intent to commit rape and he appeals.
Affirmed.Appeal from Blackford Circuit Court; W. H. Eichhorn, Special judge.
Leonidas A. Guthrie, of Muncie, for appellant.
James A. Emmert, Atty. Gen., and Frank E. Coughlin, 1st Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged by affidavit, in the Delaware Circuit Court, with assault and battery with intent to commit a rape. On application of appellant, the venue was changed to the Blackford Circuit Court, where on application of appellant, a special judge was regularly selected and qualified to try the case.
The cause was tried by a jury resulting in a verdict of guilty as charged in the affidavit. Appellant filed a motion for new trial for the statutory reasons, which was overruled by the court, and the defendant was by proper judgment duly sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for not less than one year nor more than ten years and from this judgment, this appeal is taken.
Error assigned is ‘the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.’
Appellant's sole defense was an alibi, and appellant, his father-in-law and mother-in-law testified in substance that he was at his father-in-law's home some two miles away from the scene of the crime at the time the offense was committed. The injured woman quite positively identified appellant as the person who brutally attacked her at her home. It then became the duty of the jury under proper instructions from the court to determine whom it would believe and whom it would not believe. By its general verdict the jury determined that it believed the evidence of the injured person, and disbelieved the evidence of the appellant and his two witnesses. This the jury had a right to do. Appellant's attorney in this appeal then filed a motion for new trial for appellant in which he questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. This motion was heard by the trial judge, who had full authority to set the verdict aside and grant appellant a new trial, if he felt the evidence was such as to leave a reasonable doubt of appellant's guilt. The able and experienced trial judge no doubt listened with care to the presentation of the motion for new trial. By overruling the motion he added the weight of his approval to the jury's verdict.
This court will...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kestler v. State
......Thompson v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 290, 293, 66 N.E.2d 597;Hicks v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 277, 302, 11 N.E.2d 171,12 N.E.2d 501;Brown v. State, 1934, 206 Ind. ......
-
Kestler v. State
...... we may consider errors which have not been properly presented. to see that substantial justice has not been denied. Thompson v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 290, 293, 66. N.E.2d 597; Hicks v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 277, 302,. 11 N.E.2d 171, 12 N.E.2d 501; Brown v. State, ......
-
Kallas v. State, 28469.
......See Thompson v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 290, 293, 66 N.E.2d 597;Hicks v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 277, 302, 11 N.E.2d 171,12 N.E.2d 501;Brown v. State, 1934, 206 Ind. ......
-
Kallas v. State
...... do so in view of the failure in certain instances to comply. with well recognized rules for the determination of appeals. See Thompson v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 290, 293, 66. N.E.2d 597; Hicks v. State, 1938, 213 Ind. 277, 302,. 11 N.E.2d 171, 12 N.E.2d 501; Brown v. State, ......