Baum v. State, No. 278S23

Docket NºNo. 278S23
Citation269 Ind. 176, 379 N.E.2d 437
Case DateAugust 11, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 437

379 N.E.2d 437
269 Ind. 176
Edwin Paul BAUM, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 278S23.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Aug. 11, 1978.

[269 Ind. 177]

Page 438

Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Susan K. Carpenter, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

[269 Ind. 178] Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Victoria R. Van Duren, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. His conviction was affirmed by this Court. Baum v. State (1976) 264 Ind. 421, 345 N.E.2d 831. Appellant then filed a petition for post-conviction relief. This appeal is taken from the trial court's denial of that relief.

Appellant claims the trial court erred at his original trial in failing to conduct a hearing on his competency to stand trial. Rule P.C. 1, § 8, reads in part as follows:

"Any ground finally adjudicated on the merits or not so raised and knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived in the proceeding that resulted in the conviction or sentence, or in any other proceeding the petitioner has taken to secure relief, may not be the basis for a subsequent petition, unless the court finds a ground for relief asserted which for sufficient reason was not asserted or was inadequately raised in the original petition."

Under the circumstances of this case, the above-quoted portion of the rule is applicable; however since the petition, among other things, claimed incompetence of the trial counsel, the judge hearing the post-conviction relief petition determined that he would hear all allegations on their merit. We will do likewise.

Appellant argues that when he filed a plea of insanity the trial court should have considered that plea as "reasonable ground for believing the defendant to be insane." He claims the trial court should have conducted a hearing on his competency to stand trial pursuant to IC § 35-5-3.1-1 (Burns 1975).

The right to a hearing on the issue of competency is not absolute but is dependent upon the presence of reasonable grounds for believing the defendant is incompetent to stand trial. Brown v. State (1976) 264 Ind. 484, 346 N.E.2d 559. Standing alone, the plea of insanity [269 Ind. 179] is not a sufficient indicator of reasonable grounds.

Page 439

The failure to hold a hearing upon the filing of this plea was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion. We therefore hold the trial court did not err in not conducting a hearing on appellant's competence to stand trial.

Appellant also claims the trial court erred in refusing to reread four of the instructions to the jury at the jury's request. He further claims the trial court erred in failing to advise the jury regarding the possibility of parole. At the time of the request for the rereading...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 practice notes
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...benefit or detriment in order to reach a certain number of years of imprisonment." (emphasis in original) See Baum v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 176, 379 N.E.2d 437; Turner v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 91, 257 N.E.2d 825. The trial court correctly withheld information regarding the possible senten......
  • Inman v. State, No. 1178S279
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 7, 1979
    ...It was also held the trial court did not err in refusing to give instructions regarding possible parole in Baum v. State (1978) Ind., 379 N.E.2d 437. This Court has consistently held that penalties or reductions of sentences are not an appropriate consideration for the jury for the reason t......
  • Denton v. State, No. 1185S455
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 22, 1986
    ...notifying the parties. "The proper procedure upon a request for a reinstruction is to reread all the instructions." Baum v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 176, 179, 379 N.E.2d 437, 439. While this Court does not condone the practice of sending written instructions into the jury room, Henning v. Sta......
  • Quinn v. State, No. 1081S293
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 10, 1982
    ...constitutional claims were also considered and rejected in Jones v. State, (1979) Ind., 385 N.E.2d 426 and in Baum v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 176, 379 N.E.2d 437. We reaffirm our holdings in these cases and find no error in the denial of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief on the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 cases
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...benefit or detriment in order to reach a certain number of years of imprisonment." (emphasis in original) See Baum v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 176, 379 N.E.2d 437; Turner v. State, (1970) 254 Ind. 91, 257 N.E.2d 825. The trial court correctly withheld information regarding the possible senten......
  • Inman v. State, No. 1178S279
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 7, 1979
    ...It was also held the trial court did not err in refusing to give instructions regarding possible parole in Baum v. State (1978) Ind., 379 N.E.2d 437. This Court has consistently held that penalties or reductions of sentences are not an appropriate consideration for the jury for the reason t......
  • Denton v. State, No. 1185S455
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 22, 1986
    ...notifying the parties. "The proper procedure upon a request for a reinstruction is to reread all the instructions." Baum v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 176, 179, 379 N.E.2d 437, 439. While this Court does not condone the practice of sending written instructions into the jury room, Henning v. Sta......
  • Quinn v. State, No. 1081S293
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 10, 1982
    ...constitutional claims were also considered and rejected in Jones v. State, (1979) Ind., 385 N.E.2d 426 and in Baum v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 176, 379 N.E.2d 437. We reaffirm our holdings in these cases and find no error in the denial of defendant's petition for post-conviction relief on the......
  • 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