Hurst v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Hurst v. State

56 N.E.2d 493, 222 Ind. 599, 1944 Ind. LEXIS 168

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 26, 1944

DocketNo. 27,991.

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 56 N.E.2d 493 (Hurst v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hurst v. State, 56 N.E.2d 493, 222 Ind. 599, 1944 Ind. LEXIS 168 (Ind. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Richman, J.

Upon an affidavit framed under § 10-1704, Burns’ 1942 Replacement, § 2467, Baldwin’s 1934, appellant in a trial without a jury was found guilty of embezzlement, fined and sentenced to imprisonment for sixty days in the Indiana State Farm. In this appeal he questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. His argument is based upon the premise that the corpus delicti was proved only by extra-judicial confession. This premise is not supported by the record.

Appellant was employed as manager of a filling station. The products sold and the proceeds thereof bo longed to his employer. Records of his sales were kept *600 by appellant. An auditor checked these records and testified that they showed a shortage unaccounted for by appellant in the sum of $216.90. This testimony was independent from appellant’s three separate admissions and his written confession, all made after the shortage was discovered, and, considered therewith, was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. Griffiths v. State (1904), 163 Ind. 555, 557, 72 N. E. 563; Hunt v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 171, 23 N. E. (2d) 681.

Judgment affirmed.'

Note.—Reported in 56 N. E. (2d) 493.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Richman, J.

Upon an affidavit framed under § 10-1704, Burns’ 1942 Replacement, § 2467, Baldwin’s 1934, appellant in a trial without a jury was found guilty of embezzlement, fined and sentenced to imprisonment for sixty days in the Indiana State Farm. In this appeal he questions the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the finding. His argument is based upon the premise that the corpus delicti was proved only by extra-judicial confession. This premise is not supported by the record.

Appellant was employed as manager of a filling station. The products sold and the proceeds thereof bo longed to his employer. Records of his sales were kept *600 by appellant. An auditor checked these records and testified that they showed a shortage unaccounted for by appellant in the sum of $216.90. This testimony was independent from appellant’s three separate admissions and his written confession, all made after the shortage was discovered, and, considered therewith, was sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. Griffiths v. State (1904), 163 Ind. 555, 557, 72 N. E. 563; Hunt v. State (1939), 216 Ind. 171, 23 N. E. (2d) 681.

Judgment affirmed.'

Note.—Reported in 56 N. E. (2d) 493.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 N.E.2d 493, 222 Ind. 599, 1944 Ind. LEXIS 168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hurst-v-state-ind-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack