Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 Ind. 600

Ex parte Walton

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided November 15, 1881

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1881-11-15

<p>From the Decatur Circuit Court.</p>

Relies on Ex parte Heffren · Ex parte Moore · Ex parte Sutherlin

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1881-11-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently April 1954

13 state decisions

4018811890190019101920193019401950decided

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 →

Howk, J.

¶1— At the February term, 1882, of the Decatur Circuit Court, an indictment was duly returned against Ellen V. Walton, charging her with, •murder in the first degree, as an accessory before the fact. Being in the-custody of the sheriff of Decatur county, under said indictment, she presented her petition to the court below for a writ of habeas corpus, in order that she might be admitted to bail. The grounds of her application were, that the proof was not evident, nor the presumption strong, of her guilt of the offence wherewith she was charged. The court granted the' writ, and upon a full hearing of all the evidence, as well for the State as for the petitioner, made an order refusing to admit her to bail, as prayed for in her petition. To this ruling she excepted at the time, and has appealed therefrom to this court.

¶2All the evidence is in the record, and under the established practice of this court, in such cases, which we can not see any good reason for departing from in this case, we must weigh this evidence and determine the question presented by the petition, without special regard to the finding- and decision of the circuit court. Ex Parte Heffren, 27 Ind. 87; Ex Parte Moore, 30 Ind. 197; Ex Parte Sutherlin, 56 Ind. 595.

¶3We have carefully examined and considered the evidence, having been much aided therein by the able and elaMicate arguments, oral and written, of the counsel for the State and for the proitioner. Upon due consideration of the evidence, and of the arguments of counsel, we are of the opinion that the proof is not evident nor the presumption strong of the guilt of the petitioner of the offence charged against lier. Our conclusion is, therefore* that the court erred in its refusal to admit the petitioner to bail.

¶4The order and judgment are reversed, and the case is remanded, with instructions to admit the petitioner to bail.

/79/ind/600 · .json · Public domain