Abrams v. State, No. 479S114

Docket NºNo. 479S114
Citation403 N.E.2d 345, 273 Ind. 287
Case DateMay 02, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 345

403 N.E.2d 345
273 Ind. 287
Ronnie ABRAMS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 479S114.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
May 2, 1980.

[273 Ind. 288]

Page 346

Peter L. Benjamin, Merrillville, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Rollin E. Thompson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, Ronnie Abrams, was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder, Ind.Code § 35-1-54-1 (Burns 1975), and felony murder, Ind.Code § 35-13-4-1 (Burns 1975). He was sentenced to life imprisonment on the second count with sentencing withheld on the second-degree murder conviction. He now appeals raising the following issues:

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the verdicts;

2. Whether the court erred in reading an accessory instruction to the jury;

3. Whether the two verdicts were inconsistent and therefore indicated confusion on the part of the jurors rendering them unable to afford defendant a fair trial; and

4. Whether the court erred in denying defendant's motion for [273 Ind. 289] mistrial made after an allegedly prejudicial comment of the prosecuting attorney.

Page 347

A summary of the facts from the record most favorable to the state shows that three young men, one of whom was defendant, got into a car with the victim in front of her house early in the evening of August 17, 1977. Although there were conflicting stories given at trial by defendant and one of the other participants, it appears that the victim was taken to a park and raped several times. She was shot by both defendant and one other participant and her body was found in the park the next morning.

I.

Defendant's first allegation of error as originally stated in his Motion to Correct Errors is that the verdict of the jury is not supported by sufficient evidence upon all the elements of the charged offenses. However, he has not presented any argument on this issue and has failed to cite any legal authority in support of it. We have often held that arguments in appellate briefs must be discernible and cogent and must demonstrate how the alleged error harmed defendant. Guardiola v. State, (1978) Ind., 375 N.E.2d 1105; Williams v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 543, 297 N.E.2d 805. These arguments must also be supported by appropriate legal authority according to our appellate rules, and noncompliance with the rules can result in the waiver of errors on review. Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(7); Guardiola v. State, supra; Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701. Since there is no argument or legal authority in support of this issue, the issue is not properly presented to us and is therefore not before us for decision.

II.

Defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 25, 1980
    ...against him. Appellant's argument is clearly without merit. A similar contention was presented recently in Abrams v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345. We disposed of the issue by explaining that one may be charged as a principal and convicted on evidence that he aided in the commission of......
  • Daniels v. State, No. 380S66
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 9, 1983
    ...only where an abuse of that discretion can be established. Ramos v. State, (1982) Ind., 433 N.E.2d 757; Abrams v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345; Blackburn v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 139, 390 N.E.2d During the penalty phase of the trial, defense counsel called defendant's mother as a wit......
  • Walker v. State, No. 581S141
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 2, 1983
    ...be found. Ramos v. State (1982) Ind., 433 N.E.2d 757, 759; Page v. State (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1304, 1307; Abrams v. State (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345, 348; Blackburn v. State (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 653, 657. The granting of a motion for mistrial is proper only where, under all the circu......
  • Hicks v. State, No. 680S186A
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 8, 1981
    ...transaction involving one defendant may be used to support charges of distinct and separate offenses. Abrams v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345, 347; Pulliam v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 381, 395-96, 345 N.E.2d 229, 240-41; Livingston v. State, (1972) 257 Ind. 620, 624, 277 N.E.2d 363, 365;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 25, 1980
    ...against him. Appellant's argument is clearly without merit. A similar contention was presented recently in Abrams v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345. We disposed of the issue by explaining that one may be charged as a principal and convicted on evidence that he aided in the commission of......
  • Daniels v. State, No. 380S66
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 9, 1983
    ...only where an abuse of that discretion can be established. Ramos v. State, (1982) Ind., 433 N.E.2d 757; Abrams v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345; Blackburn v. State, (1979) 271 Ind. 139, 390 N.E.2d During the penalty phase of the trial, defense counsel called defendant's mother as a wit......
  • Walker v. State, No. 581S141
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 2, 1983
    ...be found. Ramos v. State (1982) Ind., 433 N.E.2d 757, 759; Page v. State (1980) Ind., 410 N.E.2d 1304, 1307; Abrams v. State (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345, 348; Blackburn v. State (1979) Ind., 390 N.E.2d 653, 657. The granting of a motion for mistrial is proper only where, under all the circu......
  • Hicks v. State, No. 680S186A
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 8, 1981
    ...transaction involving one defendant may be used to support charges of distinct and separate offenses. Abrams v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 345, 347; Pulliam v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 381, 395-96, 345 N.E.2d 229, 240-41; Livingston v. State, (1972) 257 Ind. 620, 624, 277 N.E.2d 363, 365;......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT