Turpin v. State, No. 25843.

Docket NºNo. 25843.
Citation206 Ind. 345, 189 N.E. 403
Case DateMarch 09, 1934

206 Ind. 345
189 N.E. 403

TURPIN
v.
STATE.

No. 25843.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

March 9, 1934.


Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; James L. Tucker, Judge.

Lawrence Turpin was convicted of second–degree murder, and he appeals.

Affirmed.


Eli B. Stephenson, of Bedford, for appellant.

James M. Ogden, Atty. Gen., and E. Burke Walker, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.


FANSLER, Judge.

The appellant and one Jenkins were charged jointly, by indictment in two counts, with the murder of Zack Burton. The appellant was separately tried and found guilty of murder in the second degree upon the first count, which charged that the appellant and Jenkins killed Burton while engaged in the perpetration of and attempt to perpetrate the crime of robbery by willfully and purposely shooting Burton with a pistol held in the hands of Jenkins.

The appellant filed an answer in abatement to which a demurrer was sustained. Several grounds for abatement are alleged in the answer, but only one is urged in the appellant's brief. That is the allegation: “That the Prosecuting Attorney was present with the Grand Jury when he submitted a new specially prepared indictment to them and present while they were deliberating thereon and expressing their opinions about same and said prosecutor suggested and urged that said Grand Jury return the new indictment which is the identical one herein returned October 1st, 1928. He had prepared it in two counts and with said Grand Jury discussed the sufficiency of the evidence submitted in said cause to sustain the charge.”

The statute provides: “The prosecuting attorney or his deputy shall be allowed at all times to appear before the grand jury, for the purpose of giving information relative to any matter cognizable by it or advice upon any legal matter when required; and he may interrogate witnesses before the grand jury, when the jury or he deems it necessary, but no prosecuting attorney, officer or person shall be present with the grand jury during the expression of their opinions or in giving their votes upon any matter before them.” Section 2142, Burns' Ann. St. 1926.

The demurrer, of course, admits all the facts well pleaded. Such a plea does not deny the merits of the prosecution or the

[189 N.E. 404]

guilt of the accused, and only tends to delay or postpone the remedy. The answer is required to anticipate and exclude all supposable matter which, if alleged by the state, would defeat the plea, and, therefore, in considering its sufficiency upon demurrer the allegations will be strictly construed unaided by any intendment or presumption, and will only be held sufficient if any supposable matter which might be asserted in reply is certainly and conclusively excluded. State v. Comer, 157 Ind. 611, 62 N. E. 452;Williams v. State, 188 Ind. 283, 123 N. E. 209.

The statute clearly contemplates that the prosecuting attorney may be present with the grand jury for...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • People v. Meyers, No. 80SA75
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • October 6, 1980
    ...v. United States, 352 U.S. 981, 77 S.Ct. 382, 1 L.Ed.2d 365 (1957); United States v. Rintelen, 235 F. 787 (D.C.N.Y.1916); Turpin v. State, 206 Ind. 345, 189 N.E. 403 (1934). Moreover, the defendant has failed to make any showing of prejudice resulting from the prosecutor's statements and, i......
  • State v. Paulsen, Nos. 61487
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 19, 1979
    ...& Cleaners, Inc., 381 F.Supp. 519, 521 (E.D.N.Y.1974); United States v. Rintelen, 235 F. 787, 791-94 (S.D.N.Y.1916); Turpin v. State, 206 Ind. 345, 347-49, 189 N.E. 403, 404 (1934); Makley v. State, 49 Ohio App. 359, 367, 197 N.E. 339, 343 (1934). See also ABA Standards Relating to the Pros......
  • Sisk v. State, No. 28821
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 20, 1953
    ...such hearing. Appellee, having filed a demurrer to the plea in abatement, admitted these facts well pleaded. Turpin v. State, 1934, 206 Ind. 345, 189 N.E. The plea in abatement shows that appellant was bound over to the Circuit Court to await action of the grand jury. The grand jury indicte......
  • Wurster v. State, No. 49A02-9802-CR-126
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 29, 1999
    ...and advice upon legal matters, and he may interrogate witnesses thereby assisting the grand jury in developing evidence. Turpin v. State, 206 Ind. 345, 189 N.E. 403, 404 (Ind.1934). Only in cases in which there is such "flagrant imposition of the grand jurors' will or independent judgment" ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • People v. Meyers, No. 80SA75
    • United States
    • Colorado Supreme Court of Colorado
    • October 6, 1980
    ...v. United States, 352 U.S. 981, 77 S.Ct. 382, 1 L.Ed.2d 365 (1957); United States v. Rintelen, 235 F. 787 (D.C.N.Y.1916); Turpin v. State, 206 Ind. 345, 189 N.E. 403 (1934). Moreover, the defendant has failed to make any showing of prejudice resulting from the prosecutor's statements and, i......
  • State v. Paulsen, Nos. 61487
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • December 19, 1979
    ...& Cleaners, Inc., 381 F.Supp. 519, 521 (E.D.N.Y.1974); United States v. Rintelen, 235 F. 787, 791-94 (S.D.N.Y.1916); Turpin v. State, 206 Ind. 345, 347-49, 189 N.E. 403, 404 (1934); Makley v. State, 49 Ohio App. 359, 367, 197 N.E. 339, 343 (1934). See also ABA Standards Relating to the Pros......
  • Sisk v. State, No. 28821
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 20, 1953
    ...such hearing. Appellee, having filed a demurrer to the plea in abatement, admitted these facts well pleaded. Turpin v. State, 1934, 206 Ind. 345, 189 N.E. The plea in abatement shows that appellant was bound over to the Circuit Court to await action of the grand jury. The grand jury indicte......
  • Wurster v. State, No. 49A02-9802-CR-126
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 29, 1999
    ...and advice upon legal matters, and he may interrogate witnesses thereby assisting the grand jury in developing evidence. Turpin v. State, 206 Ind. 345, 189 N.E. 403, 404 (Ind.1934). Only in cases in which there is such "flagrant imposition of the grand jurors' will or independent judgment" ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT