Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

52 Ind. 167

Ryan v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1875

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1875-11-15

<p>'CRIMINAL Law.—Assault and Battery.—Evidence.—If an indictment for an assault and battery allege that the battery was committed with a certain instrument, proof that it was done with a different instrument will be sufficient.</p>

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1875-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently December 1927

3 state decisions

10187518801890190019101920decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pettit, J.

¶1— Indictment for assault and battery. The ■charging part of the indictment is this:

¶2Did then and there, at the county of Martin, in the State of Indiana, in a rude, insolent and angry manner, unlawfully touch, beat, bruise and strike one William N. Wag-goner; and did, then and there unlawfully .shoot, strike and wound him, the said William N. Waggoner, with a gun loaded with powder and leaden shots, which,” etc.

¶3The evidence shows that the battery was committed with a stone, and not with a gun, as alleged in the indictment; and the only question in the case is, does the evidence warrant a conviction on the indictment?

¶4There is no necessity, in an indictment for an assault and battery, to describe the instrument with which the battery was committed; but if this is done, it is sufficient to prove that it was done with a different instrument, and this will not be a variance. 2 Bishop Crim. Proced., sec. 514; 1 Greenl. Ev., sec. 65.

¶5The judgment is affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.

/52/ind/167 · .json · Public domain