Workman v. State
| Decision Date | 06 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 27206.,27206. |
| Citation | 23 N.E.2d 419,216 Ind. 68 |
| Parties | WORKMAN v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On petition for rehearing.
Rehearing denied.
For former opinion, see 21 N.E.2d 712.Appeal from Dubois Circuit Court; Union W. Youngblood, Judge.
Louis A. Savage and Wm. E. Cox, all of Jasper, Fabius Gwin, of Shoals, and Lutz & Johnson, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Omer S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Hubert E. Dirks, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
On petition for rehearing the appellant earnestly contends that the court did not clearly understand his objection to the instruction dealing with the impeachment of witnesses, in which the witness Frank Souerdike is referred to by name. The first part of the instruction is a clear and explicit and admittedly correct statement of the law. This is followed by the quoted portion naming the witness Frank Souerdike. The defendant introduced witnesses who testified that the reputation of Frank Souerdike for truth and veracity was bad, and the State called no witnesses to sustain his reputation. The State called witnesses who testified that the reputation of the defendant for truth and veracity was bad, and the defendant called witnesses who testified that his reputation for truth and veracity was good. The quoted part of the instruction directs attention to the evidence tending to impeach Souerdike. It singles out Souerdike, and its tendency is to cast doubt upon his testimony. It is true that the jury is told that, if it believed that he had testified to the truth, it had the right to give credit to his testimony, ‘Even though the said Frank Souerdike has been impeached.’ It said no more in this respect than had already been said in the general part of the instruction; and the part which singles him out by name cannot be said to be calculated to bolster up and strengthen the value of his testimony. On the other hand, the instruction treats his impeachment as a fact accomplished. There is no basis for the assumption that the jury may have got the impression that his testimony was to be given any greater weight than that of any other witness under the same circumstances. On the other hand, since he was singled out and treated in the instruction as ‘impeached,’ the jury might have concluded that, because the evidence as to the reputation of the defendant for truth and veracity was conflicting, he could not be considered as ‘impeached.’ We are convinced that the defendant was not prejudiced by the instruction.
And the appeallant vigorously renews his contention that, since the evidence shows that at most he only counseled and advised the commission of the crime, he is not an aider or abettor, but an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Austin
..."At common law one who caused (an act) to be committed by an innocent agent was deemed guilty of the crime itself " (Workman v. State (1939) 216 Ind. 68, 23 N.E.2d 419, 420.) This rule has been applied to burglary, Moore v. State (1977) 369 N.E.2d 628, 632; theft, People v. Taylor (1973) 30......
-
Tyler v. State, 1--1172A94
...§ 9--102, Burns' 1956 Repl., which makes accessories guilty as principals, is proper. Workman v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 419.' In the case of Workman v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 68, at page 78, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 419, at page 420, our Supreme Court '. . . In B......
-
Hoy v. State
... ... in perpetrating a vicious assault and battery upon the ... prosecuting witness, shortly after which the witness ... discovered his money was gone. We think the instruction was ... applicable to the charge and to the evidence. Workman v ... State, 1939, 216 Ind. 68, 72, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d ... 419; Deppert et al. v. State, 1929, 200, Ind. 483, ... 484, 485, 164 N.E. 626; Simpson v. State, supra; Peats v ... State, 1938, 213 Ind. 560, 566, 12 N.E.2d 270. It is ... contended that the instruction omits a necessary ... ...
-
Ex parte Williams
...In short, the act of Reed was the act of Williams. Accord, Smith v. State, 221 Miss. 184, 72 So.2d 215 (1954); Workman v. State, 216 Ind. 68, 23 N.E.2d 419 (1938); McLemore v. State, 241 Miss. 664, 126 So.2d 236 (1961); Carlisle v. State, 31 Tex.Cr.R. 537, 21 S.W. 358 (1893). This being so,......