Young v. State
| Decision Date | 22 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30898,30898 |
| Citation | 249 Ind. 286,231 N.E.2d 797 |
| Parties | William YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
George R. Brawley, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Donald R. Ewers, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant herein is appealing from a conviction in the Circuit Court of Allen County of the offense of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony: manslaughter.
Prosecution was commenced on the basis of an affidavit charging appellant with the above stated crime:
The affidavit (omitting the caption and in its substantive parts) reads as follows:
(That on or about the day in question)
'* * * at the County of Allen and in the State of Indiana, said Defendant, William Young, a male person over the age of twenty-one years did then and there unlawfully and feloniously, and in a rude, insolent and angry manner strike and wound Joseph Clinton Ridley, by then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and voluntarily, upon a sudden heat, but without malice, shoot at the said Joseph Clinton Ridley with a certain pistol, to wit: a .32 Caliber blue steel Automatic Llama Special, Serial #287852, then and there loaded with gunpowder and bullets, which the said defendant then and there held in his hands, and which the defendant then and there caused to fire and discharge the said gunpowder and bullets into the body of the said Joseph Clinton Ridley, with intent then and there and thereby him, the said Joseph Clinton Ridley, unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and voluntarily upon a sudden heat but without malice to kill, being contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided.'
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and trial was had before the court without the benefit of a jury. The trial resulted in the court returning a finding of guilty of the offense of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony: manslaughter, however subsequently this judgment was modified to a verdict of guilty of assault and battery with intent to commit a felony, towit: aggravated assault. Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1817 (1956), (included offense). Upon this judgment the court sentenced appellant to the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than one (1) year nor more than ten (10) years.
The error assigned and relied upon by the appellant is the overruling of his motion for a new trial. Specifically appellant's sole complaint is that there was not sufficient evidence to prove the offense charged. The record of the evidence reveals the following:
On the day in question Florence Love, Willie James Love, Joe Ridley, appellant, and his wife were all present at the Love residence in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Mr. Ridley and appellant's wife had been dancing together. Mrs. Love heard Ridley tell the appellant that he was wrong by hitting his wife. Appellant informed Ridley that it was none of his business, and he then said to Ridley 'I'll kill this bitch and you too.' At the time of the latter statement appellant had drawn a gun which he had previously concealed under his shirt. Ridley immediately left the house and went to his car. Mrs. Love attempted to have Ridley remain in his car, but he broke loose and started back across the street. By this time appellant was standing in the front yard of the Love residence. When Ridley was thirty (30) to forty (40) feet from the appellant, he was shot twice in the stomach by the appellant.
Appellant attempts to interpose a plea of self-defense. However, the record shows that Ridley was unarmed and that he made no threats of violence by words or action. Nor is there any evidence to indicate that appellant was in any danger of bodily harm. Appellant's defense is untenable.
The record is void of any evidence to indicate that appellant was in danger of his life or great bodily harm, nor are there any overt acts or threatening words by Ridley to make such danger apparent to the appellant. It was appellant who drew a weapon and threatened the life of another person. It can only be said that the sole element of the defense that was clearly established by the evidence was that appellant was in a place where he had a right to be. Hightire v. State (1966), Ind., 213 N.E.2d 707.
It would appear from the evidence presented that the trial court could have found sufficient evidence for a conviction of assault and battery with intent to kill, but this was not the final judgment rendered. And if a proper finding and sentence had been entered the judgment would have had to be affirmed.
However, as a court of review we cannot ignore a fundamental error apparent on the face of the record, Wilson v. State (1943), 222 Ind. 63, 51 N.E.2d 848, for one is not to be deprived of his liberty because of carelessness on the part of the trial judge and of defense counsel in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wallace v. Duckworth
...consider issues not raised in the motion to correct error if the error was fundamental and a gross mistake, see Young v. State, 249 Ind. 286, 289, 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (1967), or a denial of fundamental due process, see Webb v. State, 259 Ind. 101, 106-07, 284 N.E.2d 812, 814-15 Indiana also......
-
Williams v. State
...deny the defendant 'fundamental due process.' " Johnson v. State, 271 Ind. at 151, 390 N.E.2d at 1010; see also Young v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 286, 289, 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that "offends our concepts of criminal justice."); Wilson v. State (1943), 222 Ind. 63, 83,......
-
Haggard v. State
...on the face of the record. Thomas v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 231; Nelson v. State, (1980) Ind., 409 N.E.2d 637; Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286, 231 N.E.2d 797. Clearly, one of the most fundamental principles of criminal law is that a person may not be twice punished for a single......
-
Elliott v. State, 4-1081A160
...error complained of must be such, that if not rectified, would deny the defendant "fundamental due process." '); Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286, 231 N.E.2d 797, 799 (fundamental error is one that 'offends our concepts of criminal justice.'); Wilson v. State, (1943) 222 Ind. 63, 83, 51 ......