Benjamin M. Willoughby

The case involved a criminal prosecution in which appellant Charles Cole and a codefendant were charged with unlawfully possessing a still and distilling apparatus for manufacturing intoxicating liquor. After a jury trial resulting in convictions, Cole appealed on the ground that the trial court erred in refusing three of his tendered jury instructions, one addressing each juror's individual duty to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and two concerning the alibi defense. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, holding that the instructions actually given by the court fully and correctly covered the legal principles in the refused instructions. The court reasoned that prior precedent established the sufficiency of instructions emphasizing each juror's personal responsibility and that the court's alibi instructions adequately addressed both the defense and the effect of reasonable doubt as to any defendant's presence at the scene.

criminal lawprocedure

In Romeo v. State, the appellant was indicted for first-degree murder for shooting and killing Salvatore Bianco but was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder. The appeal challenged the trial court's jury instructions, including instruction No. 8, which defined manslaughter and stated that involuntary manslaughter was not within the issues of the case and need not be considered. The court held that the instructions incorrectly removed from the jury's consideration the possibility of convicting on the lesser included offense of involuntary manslaughter, contrary to statutes allowing convictions on lesser degrees or included offenses and violating the Indiana Constitution's provision that juries determine both the law and the facts. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed with instructions to grant a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Leo Schaffer, who was separately tried after being jointly indicted with others for rape under an Indiana statute. He was convicted by a jury of assault and battery with intent to commit rape and sentenced to a term of five to twenty-one years in the reformatory. On appeal, Schaffer challenged the trial court's rulings on witness testimony, cross-examination limits, jury instructions about the applicable statute after a 1927 amendment, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The court affirmed the judgment, concluding there was no abuse of discretion in evidentiary rulings, the prior law on assault and battery with intent to rape remained in effect due to the repealing clause's language, and the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find the charged intent.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an appeal by a defendant convicted separately on counts of second-degree burglary and grand larceny after a jury trial, with the sole claim of error being the trial court's denial of his motion for a new trial alleging irregularities, juror misconduct, and insufficient evidence. The appellate court affirmed the judgment. The core reasoning was that the bill of exceptions containing the evidence and trial proceedings was not presented or filed within the required timeframe or with proper court authorization shown in the record, rendering it unavailable for review; without the evidence in the record, alleged errors such as juror challenges or verdict sufficiency could not be examined, and the trial court's rulings are presumed correct.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved appellant Milton H. Clark's suit to vacate a $3,000 judgment for spousal support obtained by appellee Chlo Clark against him and trustees holding his Indiana property under a will. Clark's complaint alleged lack of personal jurisdiction, improper service by publication on a nonresident, and a violation of due process because the judgment was in personam. The trial court sustained demurrers to all paragraphs of the complaint, and Clark refused to amend. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the original proceeding was in rem against property located in Indiana, the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter under the 1923 support statute, the trustees were properly served, and the collateral attack did not allege fraud, lack of notice, or any defense to the underlying claim.

family lawpropertyprocedure

The case involved appellant Wilbur Acton, who was charged in White Circuit Court with raping a female child under age 16 and convicted by a jury of the lesser offense of assault and battery with intent to commit rape. Acton appealed, arguing that the victim's name in the affidavit (Helen Lucas) was incorrect and that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence or was contrary to law, along with claims of error in jury instructions. The court affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the instructions were not properly brought into the record by bill of exceptions, that a popular or commonly used name for the victim was sufficient without material variance, and that the evidence supported the verdict of the lesser included offense.

criminal lawprocedure