Case Title: Walker v. State

Citation: 241 N.E.2d 792, 251 Ind. 432

Docket Number: 1267S154

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1968-11-15T00:00:00Z

Document:
251 Ind. 432 (1968)
241 N.E.2d 792
WALKER
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 1267S154.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed November 15, 1968.
*433 Melville E. Watson, Greenfield, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Attorney General, Richard V. Bennett, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
JACKSON, J.
This is an appeal from a conviction of the crime of murder in the second degree. Appellant was first charged with murder  shooting  by indictment filed in the Hancock Superior Court on March 11, 1967. Appellant filed a motion to quash the indictment, which motion was sustained. Thereafter, on May 19, 1967, the prosecuting attorney for said county, without referring said cause to the Grand Jury, caused to be filed in said court an instrument designated Amended Indictment for Murder  Shooting, which instrument was not signed by either the foreman of the Grand Jury or the Prosecuting Attorney, nor did the instrument contain any jurat or purport to have been sworn to. To this the appellant filed written objections and motion to strike the same, such objections and motion were overruled by the court.
Thereafter, appellant filed his motion to quash the so-called amended indictment, after hearing on the motion the court overruled the same.
Thereafter, appellant filed his plea in answer of not guilty, and not guilty by reason of temporary insanity. The State filed answer in general denial to appellant's plea of not guilty by reason of temporary insanity.
Thereafter, the cause was assigned for trial and tried by jury resulting in a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.
Thereafter, the court pronounced judgment on such verdict, which in pertinent part reads as follows:
Thereafter, defendant, in time, filed his motion for a new trial, which, omitting heading, formal parts and signature, in pertinent part reads as follows:
In support of the above motion defendant filed a memorandum which we deem it unnecessary to include herein.
Appellant's motion for a new trial was overruled and this appeal followed.
Appellant's assignment of errors is the single specification:
In arriving at a determination of the issues presented by the case at bar we deem it unnecessary to incorporate any of the evidence adduced in the trial of this cause.
The main thrust of the appellant's appeal is on the theory, first, the court was without jurisdiction in this cause, and second, that there was no proof of malice, which was necessary to sustain defendant's conviction for murder in the second degree.
We need not go beyond the first specification hereinabove mentioned in arriving at such determination. The jurisdiction of the court after sustaining the motion to quash the original indictment was never invoked by the State of Indiana.
The offense of murder can only be instituted in the State of Indiana by indictment and this is jurisdictional. State ex rel. Spurlock v. Reeves (1949), 227 Ind. 595, 87 N.E.2d 725; Pease v. State (1921), 74 Ind. App. 572, 129 N.E. 337.
*436 Burns' Indiana Statutes Annotated (1956 Repl.) Vol. 4, Pt. 1, § 9-1130, provides in part as follows:
The original indictment was quashed, the case was not resubmitted to the grand jury which found the indictment, or to another grand jury, and the court was without jurisdiction in this cause.
The motion to quash when sustained ends the prosecution under the pending affidavit or indictment though the prosecution may be refiled by following § 9-1130 Burns' 1942 Repl. Zehrlaut v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 175, 102 N.E.2d 203; State v. McCarty (1962), 243 Ind. 361, 185 N.E.2d 732.
This the State wholly failed to do and the court was without jurisdiction to proceed with the trial. The judgment is a nullity. State v. Reeves, supra; Pease v. State, supra; West v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 431, 92 N.E.2d 852.
Burns' Indiana Statutes Annotated (1956 Repl.), Vol. 4, Pt. 1, § 9-901, provides:
These two statutes, § 9-1130 and § 9-901, are mandatory, substantive and jurisdictional, and the defendant's objections, motion to strike and motion to quash the so-called amended indictment properly raised the question *437 and the court erred in overruling the same and proceeding with the trial of the defendant.
Said statutes are mandatory and must be obeyed. West v. State, supra; Bledsoe v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 675, 64 N.E. 160, 166; The State v. Buntin (1890), 123 Ind. 124, 23 N.E. 1140; Cooper v. The State (1881), 79 Ind. 206.
The judgment of the trial court must be and is hereby reversed and said cause is remanded with instructions to grant appellant's motion to quash the so-called amended indictment, to grant appellant's motion for a new trial and for such further proceedings as are necessary under this opinion.
Lewis, C.J., and DeBruler and Hunter, JJ., concur; Arterburn, J., concurs in result.
NOTE.  Reported in 241 N.E.2d 792.