Bickel v. State
| Citation | 375 N.E.2d 274,176 Ind.App. 342 |
| Decision Date | 08 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 3-277A44,3-277A44 |
| Parties | Mike BICKEL, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Robert L. Stephan, South Bend, for appellant-defendant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., J. Roland Duvall, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee-plaintiff.
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 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:
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.
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 meet it. State v. Baker, supra ; Large v. State (1928), 200 Ind. 430, 164 N.E. 263; Smith v. State (1927), 199 Ind. 217, 156 N.E. 513; Wilson v. State (1975), Ind.App., 330 N.E.2d 356. Bickel was denied this right. His motion to dismiss the information should have been granted.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed.
BUCHANAN, C. J. (By designation), and HOFFMA...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...commission of the 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......
-
Harwei, Inc. v. State, 2-283A64
...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
...to 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 insuff......
-
Colburn v. State
...law, See IC 35-3.1-1-4(a)(9) (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 356.IC 35-3.1-1-4(b) says that unless the error in the information defeats th......