Bland v. State
Decision Date | 07 November 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 1--573A95,1--573A95 |
Citation | 158 Ind.App. 441,303 N.E.2d 61,39 Ind.Dec. 489 |
Parties | Dennis BLAND and Jackie Flynn, Defendants-Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
David J. Colman, Bloomington, for defendants-appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., John H. Meyers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
The defendants-appellants (Bland and Flynn) were convicted by a jury of possession of a narcotic drug and the sale of a narcotic drug. We are of the opinion that their overruled motion to correct errors presents an issue which requires reversal of the cause.
Bland and Flynn complain about remarks made by the prosecuting attorney during closing argument which indirectly or directly relate to both defendants' failure to testify. These remarks, made in the State's initial closing argument, were:
The prosecutor continued in his rebuttal argument:
We believe that there can be no serious arguments that the foregoing remarks are proscribed by Indiana law. (IC 1971 35--1--31--3, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1603 (Burns 1956); Long v. State (1877), 56 Ind. 182; Rowley v. State (1972), Ind., 285 N.E.2d 646. Neither do we believe the foregoing can be characterized as 'isolated elements' in a closing statement. See Bradburn v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 453, 269 N.E.2d 539.
The State takes the position that Bland and Flynn could have dispelled the error by requesting an admonishment of the jury as permitted by Rowley v. State, supra, and Keifer v. State (1932), 204 Ind. 454, 184 N.E. 557. The following discourse course took place in the absence of the jury:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dooley v. State
...Pulliam v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 381, 345 N.E.2d 229. However, we agree with the opinion of the Court of Appeals in Bland v. State, (1973) 158 Ind.App. 441, 303 N.E.2d 61. In a caveat added to a reversal on this issue, Judge Robertson "The action of this court, in deciding this issue as pr......
-
Phillips v. State
...evidence have you heard from the stand with regard to any explanation of the evidence you have heard from the State." Bland v. State (1973), 158 Ind.App. 441, 303 N.E.2d 61; Edwards v. State (1975), Ind.App., 328 N.E.2d 470. No Indiana cases have gone so far as to find that a responsive com......
-
Reynolds v. State
...self-incrimination. As discussed above, such comment amounts to fundamental error. The reasoning employed in Bland v. State, 158 Ind.App. 441, 444-45, 303 N.E.2d 61, 63 (1973) is equally applicable Griffin v. California, leaves no doubt that the Fifth Amendment, via the Fourteenth Amendment......
-
Moore v. State, 1276S444
...N.E.2d 646; Ind.Code § 35-1-31-3 (Burns 1975). However, a prompt admonishment will cure this error. Rowley, supra; Bland v. State, (1973) 158 Ind.App. 441, 303 N.E.2d 61. The impermissible comment of the prosecutor in this instance was thus cured by the trial court's action, and no error is......