Atkinson v. State
| Decision Date | 23 October 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 1-880A201,1-880A201 |
| Citation | 411 N.E.2d 651 |
| Parties | Charles Michael ATKINSON, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
E. Edward Dunsmore, Knightstown, R. Clark Allen, New Castle, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Janis L. Summers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This appeal is a result of an evidentiary hearing held to determine the question of juror misconduct. This hearing was held as a result of our decision in Atkinson v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 1170. Following the hearing, the trial judge determined that the challenge to the juror should be overruled.
We affirm.
To briefly recount the facts of the case, Charles Michael Atkinson was convicted by a jury of committing a felony while armed and sentenced to ten (10) years in prison. Although we resolved all of the other issues raised by Atkinson in his original appeal against him, we remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing as to a juror's possible bias. This possibility arose as a result of affidavits offered by Atkinson's brother-in-law, William Burns; Burns' wife, Anita; his son, John, and a waitress at a local restaurant, Lois Ballard. Those affidavits stated that one of the jurors knew Atkinson's family, presumably the Burnses, and that the juror, Wayne Larrison, told the Burnses that he might have to disqualify himself although he did not know who Atkinson was until he saw the first witness at trial.
The juror misconduct hearing was held on March 13, 1980, at which time Atkinson elected not to present any evidence. On appeal, Atkinson argues the trial court erred as a matter of law, when it established the following guidelines for the hearing: (a) The remand hearing was held in a "voir dire" or "challenge for cause" posture. (b) The burden of proof was placed upon Atkinson by a preponderance of the evidence. (c) The parties were not allowed to question the juror regarding any statements made by him or fellow jurors during the course of the deliberations. Further, Atkinson contends the burden of proof should have been placed upon the State, to show beyond a reasonable doubt, the lack of bias or prejudice. We cannot agree with these contentions, and believe the procedure used by the trial court was proper, and implicit in the holdings of Atkinson v. State, supra; Barnes v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 320, 330 N.E.2d 743; and Stevens v. State, (1976) 265 Ind. 396, 354 N.E.2d 727.
It is well settled that a juror may not impeach his verdict. Grigsby v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 465, 371 N.E.2d 384; Bryant v. State, (1979) Ind., 385 N.E.2d 415; Gregory v. State, (1975) 164 Ind.App. 659, 330 N.E.2d 130. The reason for this is because there would be no reasonable end to litigation and the burden upon the juries would be unconscionable. Grigsby, supra; Stinson v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 189, 313 N.E.2d 699.
In Barnes, supra, the supreme court remanded the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if juror bias existed. In commenting upon the possibility of bias, the court declared, "(i)n such a situation the defendant would need to have the opportunity to probe the juror and, if he chose, to challenge for cause." 263 Ind. at 326, 330 N.E.2d at 747 (emphasis added). The following year, the supreme court again had cause to comment on alleged juror misconduct in Stevens v. State, supra. In Stevens, the supreme court commented favorably on Barnes, and determined, "(t)he possibility of bias was sufficient to require that the defendant be afforded an opportunity to explore the juror's prejudices so as to challenge for cause if bias existed." 265 Ind. at 402, 354 N.E.2d at 732 (emphasis added).
In our prior disposition of this case, we reviewed the decisions of Barnes and Stevens, and stated that if the juror was biased or prejudiced in some manner, then a challenge for cause will be shown to have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. State
...on a defendant's challenge for cause is abuse of discretion. Morgan v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 666, 419 N.E.2d 964; Atkinson v. State (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 651. Further, we do not reweigh the evidence but consider only that evidence favorable to the appellee. Godfrey v. State (1978), ......
-
Snyder, Matter of
...Cir. 1963) 320 F.2d 45; Ind. Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 15(N). See also, Atkinson v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 391 N.E.2d 1170, 411 N.E.2d 651 (1980), trans. den.6 The contention that the consents were signed as a result of undue influence is an affirmative defense which must be speci......
-
Jarvis v. State
...reading the News-Dispatch article. Irvin v. Dowd, (1961) 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643, 6 L.Ed.2d 751, 766; Atkinson v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 651, 653. He did not ask Nicholson or Rhodes any question similar to that posed by the trial court which drew Juror Rhodes' afo......
-
Smith v. State
...on a defendant's challenge for cause is abuse of discretion. Morgan v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 666, 419 N.E.2d 964; Atkinson v. State (1980), Ind.App., 411 N.E.2d 651. Further, we do not reweigh the evidence but consider only that evidence favorable to the appellee. Godfrey v. State (1978), ......