Zimmerman v. State

Citation190 Ind. 537,130 N.E. 235
Decision Date16 March 1921
Docket NumberNo. 23617.,23617.
PartiesZIMMERMAN v. STATE.
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Circuit Court, Howard County; Wm. C. Overson, Judge.

Charles H. Zimmerman was convicted of grand larceny, and appeals. Affirmed.Overson & Manning, of Kokomo, and McConnell, Jenkines & Jenkines, of Logansport, for appellant.

Ele Stansbury and Remster A. Bingham, both of Indianapolis, for the State.

MYERS, J.

Appellant, a young man 20 years old, was convicted in the Howard circuit court of grand larceny, as defined by section 377, Acts 1905, p. 584 (section 2269, Burns 1914). The subject of the alleged larceny was an automobile, the property of the Haynes Automobile Company. The overruling of appellant's motion for a new trial is the only error relied on for a reversal of the judgment.

Appellant, in support of his motion, insists that the court erred in admitting certain evidence over his objection; in giving certain instructions upon its own motion; in giving certain instructions requested by the state; in refusing to give certain instructions requested by him; and insufficient evidence to sustain the verdict.

At a former trial of appellant on this same charge a certain witness testified on behalf of the state, and his testimony was reported by the official court reporter. A subpoena for this witness was issued to the county of his residence in this state, and by the sheriff thereof returned not found. It was then made to appear by the father of the witness, and by his former associates, that since the former trial the witness had enlisted in the army and had been sent to a foreign country (France), where he was supposed to be at the time of the present trial.

[1] Over the objection of appellant on the ground of insufficient preliminary proof, the court permitted the reporter to read to the jury from her shorthand notes the testimony of the witness given at the former trial. This character of evidence is now generally conceded to be admissible in criminal as well as in civil cases, upon a showing of diligence and inability to produce the witness in court. True, some questions were asked in making the preliminary proof which the hearsay rule ordinarily would exclude, but, as this proof as a whole had to do with determining the admissibility of the proposed evidence, we are convinced that no error thereby intervened harmful to appellant, and that the evidence of the absent witness was rightly admitted. Iowa Life Ins. Co. v. Haughton, 46 Ind. App. 467, 480, 87 N. E. 702; 22 C. J. 440, § 530.

As a part of the state's case in chief, and over the objection of appellant, and over his motion to strike out, the court permitted the testimony of two witnesses to go to the jury relative to appellant's statements, doings, and actions, four months prior to the theft in question, with reference to another automobile, the property of the Haynes Automobile Company. It appears from the testimony of one of these witnesses that in the spring of 1917 he accompanied appellant from Logansport to Kokomo and to within two city blocks of the Haynes automobile factory, where, at the suggestion of appellant, he waited until appellant should return from the employment office of the Haynes Company. In about an hour thereafter appellant returned, driving a new Haynes automobile, which they drove to Logansport. The announced purpose of appellant for seeing the Haynes Company was to obtain a settlement for an alleged injury which he claimed to have received while working there. To this witness, a boy 17 years old, and to this boy's stepfather, the other witness, appellant stated that the Haynes Company had given him this automobile in settlement of his claim against it. This automobile, the first or second day after it reached Logansport, was returned to the Haynes Company by the stepfather. Appellant sought to exclude this evidence on the ground that it tended to prove a distinct and independent offense from that for which he was on trial, and therefore inadmissible.

Prior to the introduction of the evidence to which objection was made, another witness, John Moon, a young man 20 years old, testified that about three weeks or a month prior to the time of the theft as charged in the affidavit he and appellant went from Logansport to Kokomo for the purpose of getting an automobile which appellant said he could get at the Haynes factory. When within two or three blocks of the factory he left me and went toward the factory.” In about an hour he returned, saying “chances weren't very good.” A little later he left him again and went back to the factory and in a short time returned, saying, “It isn't no good day; we will have to go back;” and they then returned to Logansport. Witness further testified that on the morning of August 12th appellant came to him at the Murdock Hotel in Logansport, where he was working, and said that he was going to get a car.” In the evening of that day appellant came to witness at the hotel and said he had the car” and told him it was “by the West Side Engine House,” and that “the car wouldn't run; it was broke down, and that it would have to be pulled in; that the police were watching it; he didn't have no license number on it, and it was in danger.” He or I one called up the Point Garage.” “After the car was pulled in he went and got it and came back for me.” It was then on Pearl street about two blocks from the hotel. It further appears in evidence that the Haynes Company was constructing automobiles faster than it could get shipping facilities from the railroad company, and was storing cars on a vacant lot near its factory. Appellant took employment with this company on the last day of January, 1917, and continued in its service for 17 days, during a part of which time he was engaged in driving cars across the country to Peru, where they were loaded on freight cars.

[2] The general rule, and the one to which we adhere, is that evidence of the commission of entirely separate and distinct offenses cannot be received for the purpose of showing a disposition to commit the crime charged, or that the accused probably committed it. Underhill v. State, 185 Ind. 587, 114 N. E. 88; 1 Elliott on Evidence, § 175. But to this rule, from necessity to aid in the detection and punishment of crime, there are many exceptions as firmly fixed as the rule itself. To state the exceptions generally it can be said that, when the act constituting the crime has been established, then any evidence tending to show motive, intent, or guilty knowledge, if in issue, or evidence which directly or as a natural sequence tends to show the defendant guilty of the crime charged, is competent, although it also tends to show him guilty of another and distinct offense. Frazier v. State, 135 Ind. 38, 34 N. E. 817;Clevenger v. State, 188 Ind. 592, 125 N. E. 41; Underhill v. State, supra; People v. Thau, 219 N. Y. 39, 113 N. E. 556, 3 A. L. R. 1537;Thompson v. United States, 144 Fed. 14, 16, 75 C. C. A. 172, 7 Ann. Cas. 62;State v. O'Donnell, 36 Or. 222, 61 Pac. 892.

[3] In the case of People v. Molineux, 168 N. Y. 264, 61 N. E. 286, 62 L. R. A. 193, it was said that evidence of other crimes should be admitted when “it tends to establish (1) motive; (2) intent; (3) the absence of mistake or accident; (4) a common scheme or plan embracing the commission of two or more crimes so related to each other that proof of one tends to establish the others; (5) the identity of the person charged with the commission of the crime on trial.” But the court, by instructions to the jury, should, as was done in this case, expressly and clearly limit such evidence to the particular phase of the case to which it is relevant and the purpose for which the jury may consider it.

[4] From the evidence in the instant case we are impressed with the view that appellant is not protected by the general rule which would require us to hold the particular testimony in question irrelevant, for the reason that evidence in many respects bears directly upon the question of his guilt, in that it tends strongly to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Kestler v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1949
    ... ... 344, 353, 174 N.E. 283, and cases ... cited; Scharillo v. State, 1934, 207 Ind. 22, 24, ... 191 N.E. 76; Osbon v. State, 1937, 213 Ind. 413, ... 424, 13 N.E.2d 223; Falk v. State, 1914, 182 Ind ... 317, 106 N.E. 354; Robinson v. State, 1919, 188 Ind ... 467, 124 N.E. 489; Zimmerman v. State, 1921, 190 ... Ind. 537, 130 N.E. 235; Osborn v. State, 1926, 199 ... Ind. 44, 46, 154 N.E. 865. It must be such that the trier of ... the facts may reasonably and naturally infer to a moral ... certainty the existence of the fact sought to be proved ... Howard v. State, 1923, ... ...
  • Gubitz v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 1, 1977
    ...crimes. Underhill v. State (1916), 185 Ind. 587, 114 N.E. 88; Gears v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 380, 180 N.E. 585; Zimmerman v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 537, 130 N.E. 235. "Where the circumstances surrounding the offenses other than that charged are of a similar nature, showing use of similar o......
  • New York Cent. R. Co. v. Pinnell
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 14, 1942
    ... ... exercise of due diligence his deposition could not have been ... taken, or that the witness is a nonresident of the state, or ... that he is absent from his residence, and his whereabouts ... cannot, by due diligence, be ascertained, or that he has ... absented ... v. Harber, 1871, 36 Ind. 536, 541; Levi v ... State, 1914, 182 Ind. 188, 191, 104 N.E. 765, 105 N.E ... 898, Ann.Cas.1917A, 654; Zimmerman v. State, 1921, ... 190 Ind. 537, 130 N.E. 235; Hamilton v. State, 1934, ... 207 Ind. 97, 190 N.E. 870 ...          Appellant ... ...
  • Brown v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • October 8, 1970
    ...that such evidence is inadmissible except to show intent, motive, purpose, identification, or a common scheme or plan. Zimmerman v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 537, 130 N.E. 235; Gears v. State, 1932, 203 Ind. 380, 180 N.E. 585; Hergenrother v. State, 1939, 215 Ind. 89, 18 N.E.2d 784; Kallas v. S......
  • 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