Arnold v. State, 2--273A28
| Decision Date | 22 August 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 2--273A28,2--273A28 |
| Citation | 157 Ind.App. 359,300 N.E.2d 135 |
| Parties | Michael ARNOLD, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Marshall E. Williams, Indianapolis, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant Michael Arnold was charged by affidavit with the crime of second degree burglary. Arnold was tried by a jury which entered its verdict finding him guilty of second degree burglary. Judgment was entered on the verdict of the jury and Arnold was sentenced to be imprisoned for not less than two nor more than five years. The motion to correct errors filed by Arnold was overruled and this appeal followed.
On appeal, Arnold first contends that State's Exhibit 'C', a 'latent print' card, was erronesouly admitted into evidence because no foundation was laid identifying it as having some material connection with the crime charged.
Even assuming, arguendo, that no foundation was laid for the admission of State's Exhibit 'C', error arising therefrom does not necessitate reversal. Courts of review in Indiana have long held that admission of improper evidence which tends only to disclose a fact clearly proved by other admissible and uncontradicted evidence is harmless error. Easton v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 307; Shank v. State (1972), Ind.App., 289 N.E.2d 315, 33 Ind.Dec. 527.
Here, State's Exhibit 'C' was circumstantial evidence identifying Arnold as the burglar. Error, if any, was rendered harmless because such fact was directly established by the following testimony which is contained in the record before us.
Paul Phillip Deubner testified, on direct examination, that on May 3, 1972, he observed Arnold in the company of another man break four windows in Michelle's Massage Parlor and enter the building. Deubner further testified that he saw one of the men 'go out the back, carrying some stuff in his hands.'
Police Officer Gilbert E. Coyle testified, on direct examination, that on May 3, 1972, he was on his way home from work when he was advised by a passing motorist that the motorist and heard children breaking glass in the 2500 block of West 16th Street. Officer Coyle proceeded to that area and pulled up in front of Michelle's Massage Parlor where he saw a subject standing in front of the door. Officer Coyle further testified that the subject turned and ran through the building and out the rear. Officer Coyle thereafter recovered from behind the building a clock radio and hand vibrator which were identified as having been inside the building prior to the burglary.
Error, if any, in the admission of State's Exhibit 'C' was harmless.
Arnold next contends that the trial court erred in overruling his motion for discharge which was based on the failure of the trial court to follow the following portion of CR. 11, Ind. Rules of Procedure:
'In all courts of superior jurisdiction having general jurisdiction to try felony charges, the trial court shall sentence ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard v. State
...293 N.E.2d 781; Wolfe v. State, (1928) 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545; Carlile v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 303; Arnold v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 300 N.E.2d 135; Coffey v. Wininger, (1973) Ind.App., 296 N.E.2d 154; Indiana Rules of Procedure, Rule TR. 61, IC 1971, 34--5--1--1. As to t......
-
Ballard v. State
...293 N.E.2d 781; Wolfe v. State, (1928) 200 Ind. 557, 159 N.E. 545; Carlile v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 303 N.E.2d 303; Arnold v. State, (1973) Ind.App., 300 N.E.2d 135; Coffey v. Wininger, (1973) Ind.App., 296 N.E.2d 154; Indiana Rules of Procedure, Rule TR. 61, IC 1971, 34--5--1--1. ' As to......
-
Taylor v. State, 3--675A107
...that the court is excused from exact compliance where there was 'good cause' for the delay. See, Alford, supra; Arnold v. State (1973), Ind.App., 300 N.E.2d 135. Such cause may be presumed where the record is silent as to the reason for delay and the defendant made no objection. Moore v. St......
-
Shultz v. State
...545; King v. State (1979), Ind.App., 397 N.E.2d 1260; Carlile v. State (1973), 158 Ind.App. 508, 303 N.E.2d 303; Arnold v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 359, 300 N.E.2d 135; Coffey v. Wininger (1973), 156 Ind.App. 233, 296 N.E.2d 154; T.R. We have also considered recent cases such as Bales v. ......