Knapp V State Summary

Knapp v. State

Topic: Introduction to Relevance

Case: Knapp v. State 168 Ind. 153, 79 N.E. 1076 (1907).

Facts: Defendant, Knapp, killed a deputy sheriff who attempted to arrest him. Defendant asserted that he killed the sheriff in self-defense because he heard that sheriff has clubbed and seriously injured an elderly man while in the process of arresting elderly man. Knapp could not recall the informant whom told him the story. However, the elderly died of alcoholism and senility which was evidenced by the prosecutor. Also there was no violent marks on elderly man’s body when he died. The trial court found that Knapp was convicted of murdering the victim.

History: Knapp was convicted of murder, he appealed.

Issue: May the falsity of

The fact that the story Knapp claims he heard about the victim is not true tends to disapprove Knapp’s claim that he actually heard the story, which in turn tends to disprove his claim of self-defense. Here, Knapp correctly asserted that the real issue was whether or not Knapp had heard the deputy caused the death of the old man. In spite of Knapp’s claim that the deputy has killed the old man while arresting him, Knapp could not identify the person who told him the story.

Here, the prosecutor asserted that there must be someone who is not telling the truth and also the defendant could not identify the person whom he heard the story from. Even though, the prosecutor could not show what Knapp had, or had not, heard, the prosecutor showed that the deputy did not killed the old man by submitting evidence because the elderly man had actually died of senility and alcoholism. Also there was no violent marks on elderly man’s body which negates Knapp’s assertion, hence making Knapp’s story less probable.

Rationale: The court shows that admissibility of evidence even if a slight inference can be made, where the court should admit the evidence of a collateral fact. The court will be more liberal when the evidence presented has a direct connection to the