Bickel v. State, No. 3-277A44

Docket NºNo. 3-277A44
Citation375 N.E.2d 274, 176 Ind.App. 342
Case DateMay 08, 1978
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 274

375 N.E.2d 274
176 Ind.App. 342
Mike BICKEL, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
No. 3-277A44.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,Third District.
May 8, 1978.

Robert L. Stephan, South Bend, for appellant-defendant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., J. Roland Duvall, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.

STATON, Judge.

Mike Bickel was tried by jury and was convicted of conspiracy. Among numerous alleged errors 1 presented for our consideration on appeal, Bickel argues that the trial court erroneously denied [176 Ind.App. 343] his motion to dismiss the information for lack of specificity. The information under which Bickel was charged was clearly inadequate. We reverse.

The charging information stated:

"That on or about the 19th day of January, 1976, in St. Joseph County, in the State of Indiana, one MIKE BICKEL and Korde Edward Mortakis did unlawfully, knowingly and feloniously unite, combine, conspire, confederate and agree to and with each other for the object and purpose and with the unlawful and felonious intent to commit a felony, to-wit: robbery; contrary to the form of Statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana. The above acts were committed in violation of Burns Indiana Statutes, Section 10-1101, I.C. 35-1-111-1."

On February 4, 1976, (before arraignment) Bickel filed his motion to dismiss. A supporting memorandum filed at the same time explained that the information was so vague that it failed to apprise Bickel of the specific crime with which he was charged.

We perceive two particular deficiencies in the information. (1) It fails to set out Bickel's role in the conspiracy. See State v. Baker (1963), 244 Ind. 150, 191 N.E.2d 499. (2) It fails to describe the intended felony with the same certainty and particularity as an indictment for committing such felony. Kelley v. State (1936), 210 Ind. 380, 3 N.E.2d 65. Bickel's information did no more than name the intended felony, robbery, without naming any of the elements of robbery. Such an information is insufficient. Lodyga and Mantych v. State (1932), 203 Ind. 494, 179 N.E. 542; Gennett v. State (1925), 197 Ind. 105, 149 N.E. 894; Williams v. State (1919), 188 Ind. 283, 123 N.E. 209.

Page 275

An accused has a right to require that any crime alleged against him be charged with sufficient certainty to enable him to anticipate the proof which would be adduced against him so he could...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Brown v. State, No. 1-1178A337
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 29 de abril de 1980
    ...substantive or underlying crime. Brown cites State v. Baker, (1963) 244 Ind. 150, 191 N.E.2d 499, and Bickel v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 274, in support of this contention. He further argues that the State's failure to make specific allegations in the information placed an undue b......
  • Harwei, Inc. v. State, No. 2-283A64
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 23 de janeiro de 1984
    ...certainty to enable him to anticipate the proof which would be adduced against him and to enable him to meet it. Bickel v. State, (1978) 176 Ind.App. 342, 375 N.E.2d 274. We believe the information here meets these In our opinion, any reasonable defendant reading the informations here would......
  • Wine v. State, No. 85A04-9311-PC-415
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 de julho de 1994
    ...overcome the procedural default of waiver by asserting fundamental error. In support of his argument Wine cites Bickel v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 342, 375 N.E.2d 274. In Bickel, we reversed the trial court's denial of Bickel's motion to dismiss and held that the information was insuffici......
  • Colburn v. State, No. 2-777A279
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 de dezembro de 1978
    ...(Burns Code Ed.Supp.1978.) . See also, Kain v. State, (1954) 234 Ind. 160, 123 N.E.2d 177; Bikel v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 274; Wilson v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d IC 35-3.1-1-4(b) says that unless the error in the information defeats the jurisdiction of the trial court......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Brown v. State, No. 1-1178A337
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 29 de abril de 1980
    ...substantive or underlying crime. Brown cites State v. Baker, (1963) 244 Ind. 150, 191 N.E.2d 499, and Bickel v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 274, in support of this contention. He further argues that the State's failure to make specific allegations in the information placed an undue b......
  • Harwei, Inc. v. State, No. 2-283A64
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 23 de janeiro de 1984
    ...certainty to enable him to anticipate the proof which would be adduced against him and to enable him to meet it. Bickel v. State, (1978) 176 Ind.App. 342, 375 N.E.2d 274. We believe the information here meets these In our opinion, any reasonable defendant reading the informations here would......
  • Wine v. State, No. 85A04-9311-PC-415
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 de julho de 1994
    ...overcome the procedural default of waiver by asserting fundamental error. In support of his argument Wine cites Bickel v. State (1978), 176 Ind.App. 342, 375 N.E.2d 274. In Bickel, we reversed the trial court's denial of Bickel's motion to dismiss and held that the information was insuffici......
  • Colburn v. State, No. 2-777A279
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 de dezembro de 1978
    ...(Burns Code Ed.Supp.1978.) . See also, Kain v. State, (1954) 234 Ind. 160, 123 N.E.2d 177; Bikel v. State, (1978) Ind.App., 375 N.E.2d 274; Wilson v. State, (1975) Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d IC 35-3.1-1-4(b) says that unless the error in the information defeats the jurisdiction of the trial court......
  • 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