Title: Dennis v. State
Citation: 102 N.E.2d 650, 230 Ind. 210
Docket Number: 28,735
State: Indiana
Issuer: Indiana Supreme Court
Date: January 7, 1952

230 Ind. 210 (1952)
102 N.E.2d 650
DENNIS
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 28,735.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed January 7, 1952.
*212 Howard R. Hooper, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
J. Emmett McManamon, Attorney General; John Ready O'Connor and George W. Hand, Deputy Attorneys General, for appellee.
BOBBITT, J.
Appellant was indicted under the Acts of 1935, ch. 124, § 1, p. 465, being § 9-103, Burns' 1942 Replacement, on the charge of accessory after the fact of murder. Upon a plea of not guilty appellant was tried by jury, found guilty and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for life.
Appellant's assignment of errors contains three specifications: (1) That the court erred in sustaining appellee's motion to amend the indictment; (2) The court erred in overruling the appellant's motion in arrest of judgment; (3) That the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial.
First: In view of the decision we have reached the questions presented by specifications one and two might arise in a new trial, so we shall consider them in this *213 appeal. These assignments present substantially the same question and will be considered together. The question thus presented is: Did the trial court err in permitting the state to amend the indictment after plea by adding the words "well knowing the commission of the felony aforesaid by the said Sam Dennis"?
After a defendant has entered his plea to a criminal charge, the state cannot amend the affidavit or indictment as to matters of substance. State ex rel. Kaufman v. Gould (1951), 229 Ind. 288, 98 N.E.2d 184, 185, and cases there cited.
Said § 9-103, Burns' 1942 Replacement, provides as follows:
The indictment under which appellant was tried and convicted, omitting formal parts, is as follows:
It is readily apparent from a comparison of the affidavit and statute as above set out that appellant is charged with the crime defined in said § 9-103 in as nearly the identical language of the statute as it would be possible to use.
The indictment, before the amendment was made, was substantially in the language of the statute. It was, therefore, sufficient to charge the alleged offense before it was amended. State v. Snyder (1879), 66 Ind. 203; Hicks v. State (1926), 197 Ind. 294, 150 N.E. *215 759, 115 A.L.R. 360; Bielich v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 127, 126 N.E. 220.
Since the indictment was sufficient without the amendment, it follows that the phrase added by the amendment was surplusage and did not in any way change the crime charged or prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant (appellant). The amendment was not one of substance and it was not reversible error for the trial court to permit it to be made. The indictment was not rendered insufficient or improper by the surplusage contained in the amendment. Souerdike v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 192, 102 N.E.2d 367; Sheets v. State (1940), 217 Ind. 676, 680, 30 N.E.2d 309; Ruffenbarger v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 616, 618, 131 N.E. 514.
The trial court committed no error in sustaining appellee's motion to amend the indictment or in overruling appellant's motion in arrest of judgment.
Second: Having disposed of the question which might arise on a retrial of this action, we now consider appellant's assigned error No. 3 which is that the court erred in overruling appellant's motion for a new trial. While this motion contains six alleged errors the substantial question which it presents is that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. Appellant contends that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the conviction because there was no evidence of corpus delicti except the statement made to the police officers by appellant at the Indianapolis Detective office in police headquarters on July 29, 1946.
This court said in Parker v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 1, 6, 88 N.E.2d 556, 89 N.E.2d 442:
Proof of the corpus delicti means proof that the specific crime charged has actually been committed by someone. Parker v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 1, 6, 88 N.E.2d 556, 89 N.E.2d 442, supra.
In order to prove the corpus delicti in the case at bar there must be some evidence of probative value aside from the extra-judicial statement of appellant which he signed at the police station on July 29, 1946, showing that the crime charged in the indictment was committed by someone. Parker v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 1, 7, 88 N.E.2d 556, 89 N.E.2d 442, supra.
In order to sustain a conviction herein, it was necessary for the state to produce evidence of probative value aside from said extra-judicial statement, showing that appellant performed some personal act whereby he harbored, concealed or assisted his brother, Sam Dennis, for the purpose of helping him to evade capture and punishment for the crime which he had committed. The words "harbor," "conceal," and "assist" are not specifically defined in the act hence they will be given their ordinary and usual meaning consistent with their use.
*217 "Harbor" as here used means to shelter, to give refuge, to lodge, care for and protect any person guilty of a felony. 39 C.J.S., Harbor or Harbour, p. 775.
"Conceal" as here used means to hide, secrete, to keep out of sight, or prevent the discovery of one guilty of a felony. Boyer v. State (1908), 169 Ind. 691, 695, 83 N.E. 350, 352; 15 C.J.S., Conceal, p. 792.
"Assist" as here used contemplates some positive, affirmative act intended to help or aid someone to escape arrest, capture or punishment.
The evidence relied upon by appellee to sustain the conviction of appellant is summarized in appellee's brief substantially as follows:
*219 An examination of all the evidence in the record, to determine whether there is substantial evidence of probative value from which an inference might be drawn to support each essential element of the crime charged, discloses nothing of materiality on the questions of "harboring," "concealing," and "assisting" not contained in the above summary.
Considering other testimony in the record not summarized above, there was sufficient evidence to establish that a felony was committed by Sam Dennis. It was sufficiently established that appellant was not a relative of Sam Dennis within the degree of relationship in the exception provided by statute and there was sufficient evidence from which the jury might have drawn proper inferences that appellant had knowledge of the crime committed by his brother. However, when the extra-judicial statement is excluded, there is no evidence of probative value in the record to establish or prove that anyone: (1) Gave refuge to, sheltered, lodged, cared for or protected, or (harbored) appellant's brother, Sam Dennis, as alleged in the indictment; (2) That anyone hid, secreted, kept out of sight, (concealed), or prevented anyone from discovering the whereabouts of appellant's brother, Sam Dennis; and (3) There is no evidence that anyone performed any affirmative act with intent to help and/or assist Sam Dennis, the "principal offender" to escape detection, arrest, capture or punishment.
If the statement signed by appellant in the police station is eliminated, there is no evidence from which even a proper inference could be drawn which would tend to show that anyone harbored or concealed Sam Dennis (the principal offender) or in any way assisted him to escape detection, arrest, capture, or punishment. Moreover, we are not convinced from a careful examination of appellant's extra-judicial statement that *220 there is sufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of the crime charged even though the corpus delicti had been established independently of such statement. Smith v. State (1951), 229 Ind. 546, 99 N.E.2d 417. The verdict of the jury is, therefore, not supported by sufficient evidence in one of the essential elements of the crime charged and is, therefore, contrary to law.
Since the other questions raised by appellant will not be likely to occur in another trial they will not be considered.
Judgment reversed with instructions to sustain appellant's motion for a new trial.
NOTE.  Reported in 102 N.E.2d 650.
[1]  Brackets indicate words added by amendment.