Anderson v. State, 29640
| Decision Date | 03 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 29640,29640 |
| Parties | William Lane ANDERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
John G. Bunner, Evansville, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Merl M. Wall, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was charged and convicted of assault and battery with intent to commit murder. Appellant's motion for new trial sets forth three causes which he argues here on appeal.
1. During the course of the trial appellant moved for the production of police reports written by such officers following statements made by the prosecuting witnesses. The motion was properly overruled. If the reports were a matter of public record they could have been examined by appellant before trial or brought into court by subpoena. Furthermore, the officers could have been questioned regarding such statements. If the reports were not matters of public record but only a part of the information which comprised the prosecutor's file in the case, then appellant was not entitled to inspect these alleged 'statements.'
In support of his position appellant relies upon the cases of Key v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 172, 132 N.E.2d 143; Jencks v. United States, 1957, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.E.2d 1103. However, these cases do not support appellant's position. In the case of Key v. State, supra, this court stated that it was error to refuse to permit an attorney to testify regarding statements made to him by his client, the prosecuting witness, regarding the innocence of the accused. In that case this court held that the client-witness by his own conduct had waived the attorney-client privilege. There was no issue in the case regarding the right of the accused to examine statements or written memoranda of statements previously made by the witness.
The United States Supreme Court in the case of Jencks v. United States, supra, held that 'justice' required that the accused be permitted to inspect documents or memoranda of statements made by a witness in the preparation of the case. 1 We do not question the right of the United States Supreme Court to establish rules of practice and procedure for the federal courts. However, we are neither responsible for nor bound by such rules. We are only responsible for and bound by the rules of practice and procedure as established in the state of Indiana, and so long as they guarantee to every citizen his constitutional rights no federal question is involved.
The rule which appellant asks us to adopt does not involve any constitutional question. The action is not required by any statute or rule of law known to this jurisdiction. The adoption of such a rule would constitute a serious departure from the rules of judicial procedure which have, for centuries, protected both the interests of society and the lights of its individual members who may have defied its laws.
The rules of practice and procedure must be consistent in all cases. We know with what little regard persons who live in contempt of socety and its laws hold for either the truth or the witnesses who testify against them. The prosecution of such persons is now extremely difficult. If we were to require the prosecutor to turn over to such persons the statements of all witnesses compiled in the preparation of a case, then 'justice' would not be served, but would, on the contrary, be seriously frustrated.
The desire that 'justice shall be done' [Jencks v. United States, supra] although laudable in itself, does not require that the state open its confidential files to the accused, nor by the same reasoning, does it extend to the state a correlative right to examine the files of the accused. In Indiana we surround persons charged with crime with every reasonable safeguard to the end that no person shall be convicted of a crime except under due process of law, and then only upon proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This protection does not include a right of the accused to examine statements and reports contained in the working files of the state.
We do not here decide that under no circumstances may the accused inspect statements made by witnesses which are a part of such file, as where it is first shown that such statements are in direct conflict with the testimony of the witness in open court 2 and that such prior statements would prove the innocence of the accused. There was no attempt to prove such conflict in this case. 3
2. Further, appellant contends that the court erred in overruling his motion to quash the affidavit. The offense charged was assault and battery with intent to commit murder. The affidavit charged:
'* * * that William Lane Anderson * * * did then and there unlawfully and feloniously attempt to commit a violent injury upon the person of Marvin Baker, he the said William Lane Anderson, then and there having the present ability to commit said injury, by then and there unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and with premeditated malice, shooting at and against the said Marvin Baker with a certain pistol then and there loaded with gunpowder and leaden balls, which pistol he, the said William Lane Anderson, then and there had and held in his hands, with intent then and there and thereby him, the said Marvin Baker unlawfully, feloniously, purposely and with premeditated malice, to kill and murder.'
It is appellant's contention that the affidavit was fatally defective in that assault and battery was an essential element of the crime and therefore it was necessary that it allege that the offense was committed 'in a rude, insolent or angry manner,' as provided in the assault and battery statute [§ 10-403, Burns' 1956 Repl.]. The position is untenable. When...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Thompson
...lower Federal courts. See, Mabry v. State, 40 Ala.App. 129, 110 So.2d 250; State v. Pikul, 150 Conn. 195, 187 A.2d 442; Anderson v. State, 239 Ind. 372, 156 N.E.2d 384; State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 394 P.2d 106; McKenzie v. State, 236 Md. 597, 204 A.2d 678; State v. Aubuchon (Mo.) 381 S.W.2......
-
State v. Eads
...104; State v. Grunau, 273 Minn. 315, 141 N.W.2d 815; People v. Hoagland, 83 Ill.App.2d 231, 227 N.E.2d 111, 113; Anderson v. State, 239 Ind. 372, 156 N.E.2d 384, 385. This is also consistent with our holding in State v. White, supra, 151 N.W.2d 552, We make one exception to our holding here......
-
State v. Page
...rejecting the Jencks rule: Mabry v. State, 40 Ala.App. 129, 110 So.2d 250; State v. Pikul, 150 Conn. 195, 187 A.2d 442; Anderson v. State, 239 Ind. 372, 156 N.E.2d 384; State v. Hill, 193 Kan. 512, 394 P.2d 106; McKenzie v. State, 236 Md. 597, 204 A.2d 678; State v. Aubuchon, Mo., 381 S.W.2......
-
Antrobus v. State, 169S6
...trial court to deny it. We note that this rule is a departure from the rule in effect prior to the Bernard case. In Anderson v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 372, 156 N.E.2d 384, the Court in holding that it was not error to deny the defendant's motion to produce police reports containing statemen......