Beck v. State, No. 2-880A273
| Docket Nº | No. 2-880A273 |
| Citation | 414 N.E.2d 970 |
| Case Date | January 19, 1981 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 970
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Page 971
Samuel H. Power, Delphi, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Janis L. Summers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
ROBERTSON, Judge.
Defendant-Appellant Michael A. Beck (Beck), appeals his convictions of two counts of Ind. Code 35-23-4.1-3, knowingly and unlawfully carrying a firearm without a license; and knowingly and unlawfully carrying a handgun without a license prior conviction. Beck claims the trial court erred by denying his motion to quash the array of the jury, denying an instruction, in that insufficient evidence existed for the verdicts and that the verdicts were contrary to the law or the evidence.
We affirm.
Beck argues that the array of the jury was improper because the districts did not conform with the statutes. The districts in Carroll County have not been redrawn in many years. A portion of Deer Creek township forms a triangular section in District 3. The requirements for selecting a jury are contained in Ind. Code 33-4-5-2 and Ind. Code 17-1-14-2. Beck claims that the array was improper because District 3 was not compact in nature pursuant to IC 17-1-14-2 and therefore, the array was not drawn in proportion to each county commissioner's district. The jury, however, was drawn in proportion to the number of registered voters in each township as compared to the total population of Carroll County. The trial court found this method to constitute substantial compliance to IC 33-4-5-2.
The purpose behind IC 33-4-5-2 is to insure that the method used in selecting the jury is not arbitrary and that it does not result in the systematic exclusion of any group. Shack v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 450, 288 N.E.2d 155. The supreme court in Taylor v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 264, 295 N.E.2d 600, 605, stated:
The use of lists, whether they be property taxpayers or registered voters, so long as they represent a reasonable cross section of the people of the county, cannot be said to violate the rights of the accused, in the absence of a showing that such use is made in a deliberate attempt to exclude certain groups from jury selection....
Beck has not demonstrated any attempt to exclude certain members from jury selection or that he was prejudiced in any way with the jury selected. Minor irregularities from the statutes directing the selection and calling of jurors will not create a prejudice to the substantial rights of the defendant. Owen v. State, (1979) Ind., 396 N.E.2d 376. We are not convinced that Beck was prejudiced by the method of selection.
Beck argues the trial court erred in excluding his instruction regarding mens rea. The instruction read as follows:
The law of the State of Indiana is that an overt act, to constitute a crime, must be accompanied by a criminal intent, and a crime is not committed if the mind of the person doing the act is innocent. Without a criminal intent there is no crime, and if you find from the evidence that the State has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a criminal intent to violate the Uniform Firearms Act, you should then find the defendant not guilty.
In reviewing an instruction, it is necessary to determine whether: the instruction correctly states the law; that there is sufficient evidence in the record to support giving...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Andrews v. State, No. 57A03-8801-CR-1
...and whether the substance of the disputed instruction is covered by other instructions which were given. Beck v. State (1981), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. Shanholt v. State (1983), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 308, 318. In this case, the only issue is whether the content of the tendered instructions ......
-
Klopfenstein v. State, No. 2-681A193
...rehearing denied; Johnson v. State (3d Dist. 1975) 163 Ind.App. 684, 325 N.E.2d 859. Compare Beck v. State (1st Dist. 1981) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. The driver of a vehicle, however, is in violation of the statute if he conveys a handgun in the vehicle regardless of whether it is on or abo......
-
Shanholt v. State, No. 3-582A106
...and whether the substance of the disputed instruction is covered by other instructions which were given. Beck v. State (1981), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. The only question here is whether the tendered instruction was covered by other given instructions, and we find that it was. Final Instruc......
-
Hardy v. State, No. 2-278A49
...the jury is not arbitrary and that it does not result in the systematic exclusion of any group." Beck v. State (1981), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970, at 972 citing Shack v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 450, 288 N.E.2d 155. In Shack v. State, supra, 259 Ind. at 459-460, 288 N.E.2d at 162, Justice ......
-
Andrews v. State, No. 57A03-8801-CR-1
...and whether the substance of the disputed instruction is covered by other instructions which were given. Beck v. State (1981), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. Shanholt v. State (1983), Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 308, 318. In this case, the only issue is whether the content of the tendered instructions ......
-
Klopfenstein v. State, No. 2-681A193
...rehearing denied; Johnson v. State (3d Dist. 1975) 163 Ind.App. 684, 325 N.E.2d 859. Compare Beck v. State (1st Dist. 1981) Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. The driver of a vehicle, however, is in violation of the statute if he conveys a handgun in the vehicle regardless of whether it is on or abo......
-
Shanholt v. State, No. 3-582A106
...and whether the substance of the disputed instruction is covered by other instructions which were given. Beck v. State (1981), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970. The only question here is whether the tendered instruction was covered by other given instructions, and we find that it was. Final Instruc......
-
Hardy v. State, No. 2-278A49
...the jury is not arbitrary and that it does not result in the systematic exclusion of any group." Beck v. State (1981), Ind.App., 414 N.E.2d 970, at 972 citing Shack v. State (1972), 259 Ind. 450, 288 N.E.2d 155. In Shack v. State, supra, 259 Ind. at 459-460, 288 N.E.2d at 162, Justice ......