Baker v. State, 30731
| Decision Date | 28 November 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 30731,30731 |
| Citation | 248 Ind. 85,221 N.E.2d 432 |
| Parties | Charles Wesley BAKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Isadore D. Rosenfeld, South Bend, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Murray West, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment convicting the appellant of murder in the perpetration of a robbery. The victim of the killing was one Wesley McElfish, an attendant at the Pacer filling station in South Bend. The appellant was found guilty of murder in the first degree following a jury trial, with the recommendation that he be sentenced to the State Prison for life. The appellant was accordingly sentenced.
Appellant's counsel on July 2, 1964 filed a motion for a new trial, which alleged a number of procedural errors, as well as the insufficiency of the evidence. However, it appears that the appellant chose to supersede the judgment of his counsel, and on July 7, 1964 filed his own motion for a new trial, which was mailed from the Indiana State Penitentiary. This motion for a new trial covered no procedural errors, but merely alleged the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict and was contrary to law. Thereafter, appellant's counsel, appointed by the court, filed an amended motion for a new trial on September 14, 1964.
The record shows that the appellant, through this trial and appeal, has attempted at times to override the advice and efforts of counsel appointed for his defense. During the trial he engaged in outbursts during the testimony, such as: 'No I didn't', 'That is a lie', 'I ain't told you nothing', and 'That is a lie'.
It occurs to us that if the State had committed outbursts of this sort, a defendant would immediately claim error and an unfair trial by such prejudicial remarks. This points out clearly the State's disadvantage in a trial of this sort. A defendant may commit almost any error during the trial and in the presence of the jury, with the hope of prejudicing the jury and securing an acquittal. If he is acquitted regardless of his misconduct, he may claim he cannot be retried because of the double jeopardy provision of the Constitution. The State is helpless in securing a fair trial in such cases. All that the State can do is ask the court to admonish the jury to disregard the defendant's statements and misconduct.
At appellant's request, counsel was appointed at taxpayers' expense to aid him in his defense and appeal. Appellant appeared in court, however, and insisted that his appeal be based upon his own motion for a new trial filed on July 7, 1964 and not those filed by his counsel. Thereupon, the two previous motions for a new trial filed by his counsel were withdrawn. The result is that because of appellant's insistence, and disregarding the advice of his counsel, we are limited in this appeal to the question of whether or not the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict or is contrary to law. We said in Franklin, Jr. v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 418, 420, 126 N.E.2d 768, 769:
'If a party sees fit to appear pro se and attempts to represent himself before a court when he has ample opportunity to secure competent counsel and to receive legal advice, such person must take the consequences of his own deliberate acts.'
Appellant's counsel, nevertheless, has attempted to urge certain claimed procedural errors which are not presented to us for consideration by reason of the appellant's stubborn insistence that his (appellant's) judgment as to procedure be followed, rather than that of counsel appointed to safeguard his rights. He urges that he and his counsel were not given sufficient time to prepare for trial. There is no record which shows that any continuance was asked, and the record does show that trial counsel was appointed for appellant three months before the date of the trial. There is neither any factual nor procedural basis of this point presented to us in the record.
Counsel further urged, although it was not properly presented for our consideration, that a statement made by one Thomas, an alleged accomplice of the appellant, was erroneously admitted in the evidence. The form of the objections to this evidence is not presented to us, nor is this alleged error included in the motion for a new trial. Under the rules of this Court (Rule 2--6), all claimed errors occurring prior to the filing of the motion for a new trial must be included therein for review on appeal. There is logic and reason in such a rule. The main purpose of it is to give the trial court an opportunity to review any alleged error and correct it while in the trial court, and even grant a new trial in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drollinger v. State
...prepare to meet the charges against his client. See Powell v. Alabama, (1932) 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158; Baker v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 85, 221 N.E.2d 432. The record in this case, however, does not reveal a denial of the right to the effective assistance of counsel, nor of th......
-
Hogan v. Review Bd. of Indiana Dept. of Employment and Training Services
...300, 307. We also recognize that "[j]udges have no right, upon mere whim, to disregard rules or principles of law." Baker v. State (1966) 248 Ind. 85, 88, 221 N.E.2d 432, 434. However, given the compelling policy of deciding cases upon the merits rather than technicalities, we hold that thi......
-
Indiana State Personnel Board v. Parkman, 20675
...new trial or in its assignment of errors the action of its trial court in striking the transcript. Our Supreme Court in Baker v. State (1966), Ind., 221 N.E.2d 432, 434, clearly pointed out the basis of this rule when the court 'Rules for presenting issues to the court and for appellate pro......
-
Phillips v. Green St. Corp.
...prior to the filing of a motion for new trial must be included therein for review on appeal or they are deemed waived. Baker v. State (1967), Ind., 221 N.E.2d 432; Fisher v. State (1966), Ind., 219 N.E.2d 818. Appellant did not include in his motion for new trial the above alleged error, an......