Case Title: State v. Baker

Citation: 191 N.E.2d 499, 244 Ind. 150

Docket Number: 30,213

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1963-06-28T00:00:00Z

Document:
244 Ind. 150 (1963)
191 N.E.2d 499
STATE OF INDIANA
v.
BAKER; SILVER.
No. 30,213.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed June 28, 1963.
*151 Edwin K. Steers, Attorney General, and Carl E. Van Dorn, Deputy Attorney General, for appellant.
Milford M. Miller, W.C. Welborn and Ole J. Olsen, all of Evansville, for appellees.
*152 ACHOR, J.
This is an appeal from an order of the Vanderburgh Circuit Court sustaining appellees' motion to quash the amended affidavit. The State refused to plead further and, instead, filed its praecipe for this appeal. [The appeal was dismissed as to appellee Fred O. Baker for procedural reasons.] The material part of the affidavit was as follows:
Although, from an examination of the affidavit, it would appear that it may be sufficient to properly *153 charge the offense of conspiracy to commit a larceny, since both the state and the appellee have presented the case to us solely on the issue as to whether or not the affidavit alleged grounds sufficient to constitute a charge of conspiracy to commit embezzlement, we will adopt the theory upon which the case is presented to us, and consider it accordingly.
Appellee asserts, first, that the affidavit was defective for the reason that there is no direct and positive allegation that the particular $2,930.00 money, which he allegedly conspired to embezzle, came into Silver's control and possession and was held by him by virtue of his being president, agent, servant and employee of Anchor Finance Corporation. Nor is it alleged that the money came into his control and possession as a result of his access to the funds of the corporation in the bank, or the signing and cashing checks of the corporation drawn on the bank.
Such omission is fatal under the long line of Indiana cases, commencing with Vinnedge v. State (1906), 167 Ind. 415, 418, 419, 421, 79 N.E. 353. In that case this court stated:
In Wright v. State (1907), 168 Ind. 643, 645, 81 N.E. 660, this court said:
*155 This court has recently stated in Loveless v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 534, 539, 166 N.E.2d 864:
We conclude, therefore, that the affidavit failed to state the charge of embezzlement with the certainty heretofore prescribed by the decisions of this court.
Furthermore, the affidavit failed to charge specifically what part, if any, either Baker or the appellee Silver was to have in the purposed embezzlement conspiracy. It failed to allege any particulars as to the method by which they conspired to consummate the embezzlement. In fact it does not disclose whether the purposed embezzlement was to be committed jointly by the two alleged conspirators or whether it was to be committed by appellee Silver alone. To constitute a conspiracy there must be an intelligent and deliberate agreement involving a concert of action in a common purpose by two or more persons. Scott v. State (1958), 238 Ind. 667, 154 N.E.2d 107; Robertson v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 368, 108 N.E.2d 711. The affidavit does not contain these essential allegations.
A defendant is entitled to be apprised of the acts constituting the crime. Bays v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 37, 159 N.E.2d 393. This court cannot indulge in any presumptions to aid the affidavit and any ambiguity or uncertainty in the language used cannot be supplemented by intendment, or by argument, or by implication. Robinson v. State *156 (1953), 232 Ind. 396, 112 N.E.2d 861; Compton v. State (1929), 201 Ind. 535, 170 N.E. 325.
For the reasons above stated, judgment is affirmed.
Myers, C.J., Arterburn & Landis, JJ., concur; Jackson, J., concurs in result.
NOTE.  Reported in 191 N.E.2d 499.