Workman v. State, No. 27206.

Docket NºNo. 27206.
Citation21 N.E.2d 712, 216 Ind. 68
Case DateJune 29, 1939
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

216 Ind. 68
21 N.E.2d 712

WORKMAN
v.
STATE.

No. 27206.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 29, 1939.


Ott Workman was convicted of inflicting physical injury during an attempt at robbery while armed and he appeals.

Affirmed.

[21 N.E.2d 713]

Appeal from Dubois Circuit Court; Union N. Youngblood, Judge.
Louis A. Savage and William E. Cox, both of Jasper, Lutz & Johnson, of Indianapolis, and Fabe Gwin, of Shoals, for appellant.

Omer S. Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Hubert E. Dirks, Depty. Atty. Gen., for the State.


FANSLER, Chief Justice.

The appellant and two others were charged with inflicting physical injury during an attempted robbery while armed. The appellant appeals from the judgment of conviction, assigning error upon the overruling of his motion for a new trial.

The first cause for a new trial presented is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Section 9–102, Burns' Ind.St.1933, section 2243, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934, provides that: ‘Every person who shall aid or abet in the commission of a felony, or who shall counsel, encourage, hire, command or otherwise procure a felony to be committed may be charged by indictment or affidavit, tried and convicted in the same manner as if he were a principal, either before or after the principal offender is charged, indicted or convicted; and, upon such conviction, he shall suffer the same punishment and penalties as are prescribed by law for the punishment of the principal.’ There is evidence that the two defendants charged with the appellant were principals. Souerdike, one of the principals, testified that the appellant told him that Charles Basch, the person upon whom the offense was committed, had money and bonds in a safe in his house, and suggested and advised that Souerdike procure assistance and rob him and procure the money and bonds, the bonds to be turned over to appellant; that two previous attempts at robbery were made, and that he talked with the appellant after these attempts; and that appellant suggested that he treat Basch as he had another person whom he had robbed and shot. These conversations took place a year or more before the consummation of the crime charged. In determining

[21 N.E.2d 714]

the sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal, only the evidence most favorable to the state will be considered.

The appellant contends that in order to convict a person as an accessory before the fact it is necessary to show that he has not abandoned the enterprise. He relies upon Walls v. State, 1890, 125 Ind. 400, 25 N.E. 457, but that case in nowise supports the contention. He also contends that the commission of the offense is so remote from the counsel and advice to commit it that it cannot be said that there is causal connection between the two. But this was a question for the jury. There is no evidence that any time was fixed in which the offense was to be committed, nor is there evidence that the appellant sought to withdraw his counsel and influence or to dissuade the other defendants from committing the offense. It is only necessary that the appellant counseled and advised the commission of the crime, and that the counsel and advice influenced the perpetration of the crime. We know of no rule of law which fixes a time limit within which the crime must be perpetrated.

The appellant complains of an instruction in which the court sought to quote the statute above set out, but which began: ‘Every person who shall aid or abet, encourage,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Filipiak, In re, No. 28897
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 16, 1953
    ...22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 754 page 1288; Hicks v. State, 1937, 213 Ind. 277, 287, 11 N.E.2d 171, 12 N.E.2d 501. Workman v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 68, 74, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 419; Breaz v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 31, 34, 13 N.E. 952; Sanderson v. State, 1907, 169 Ind. 301, 313, 82 N.E. It......
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 25, 1980
    ...240 Ind. 37, [274 Ind. 423] 159 N.E.2d 393, cert. denied, (1960) 361 U.S. 972, 80 S.Ct. 605, 4 L.Ed.2d 551; Workman v. State, (1939) 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 420. Cf. Norton v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 514. In addition, instructions on an accused's liability as an accesso......
  • Bays v. State, No. 29739
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 16, 1959
    ...based upon the statute, § 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 In the present case appellant's own testimony that he drove the automobile to the place of the burglary, with knowledge ......
  • Hansen v. State, No. 28795
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 29, 1952
    ...Evans v. State, 1946, 224 Ind. 428, 68 N.E.2d 546; Simpson v. State, 1925, 195 Ind. 633, 146 N.E. 747. See also: Workman v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 419; Breaz v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 31, 13 N.E.2d Appellant questions the probative value of certain evidence becaus......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
21 cases
  • Filipiak, In re, No. 28897
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 16, 1953
    ...22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 754 page 1288; Hicks v. State, 1937, 213 Ind. 277, 287, 11 N.E.2d 171, 12 N.E.2d 501. Workman v. State, 1939, 216 Ind. 68, 74, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 419; Breaz v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 31, 34, 13 N.E. 952; Sanderson v. State, 1907, 169 Ind. 301, 313, 82 N.E. It......
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 25, 1980
    ...240 Ind. 37, [274 Ind. 423] 159 N.E.2d 393, cert. denied, (1960) 361 U.S. 972, 80 S.Ct. 605, 4 L.Ed.2d 551; Workman v. State, (1939) 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 23 N.E.2d 420. Cf. Norton v. State, (1980) Ind., 408 N.E.2d 514. In addition, instructions on an accused's liability as an accesso......
  • Civic Ass'n. of Wyoming v. Railway Motor Fuels, Inc., 2196
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • August 19, 1941
    ...on Evidence, Vol. 1, p. 163, Sec. 27; Manly v. Ohio Shoe Co., 25 F.2d 384; U. S. v. Model Chevrolet, 14 F.Supp. 680; Workman v. State, 21 N.E.2d 712. The judgment of the court is not sustained by the evidence, but is contrary to the evidence and the law. 4 C. J. 861; D. & R. G. R. Co. v. Pe......
  • Bays v. State, No. 29739
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 16, 1959
    ...based upon the statute, § 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 In the present case appellant's own testimony that he drove the automobile to the place of the burglary, with knowledge ......
  • 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