Bonds v. State, No. 1069S238

Docket NºNo. 1069S238
Citation280 N.E.2d 313, 258 Ind. 241
Case DateMarch 30, 1972
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 313

280 N.E.2d 313
258 Ind. 241
Robbie BONDS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1069S238.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 30, 1972.

Paul V. Rumple, William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Hassett, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PRENTICE, Judge.

Defendant (Appellant) was convicted in a trial by jury of the crime of Safe Burglary

Page 314

(Acts of 1905, ch. 169, § 374a, Acts of 1955, ch. 156, § 1, 1956 Repl.Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--702a, IC 1971, 35--1--61--1), he was sentenced to imprisonment for not less than five nor more than ten years. This appeal presents one question reviewable by the court, i.e. did the trial court err in overruling his motion for a mistrial for misconduct of counsel.

In the process of the trial, Police Officer Duckworth testified[258 Ind. 242] on direct examination that in the course of his duties he was patrolling an alley checking for 'break-ins,' when he came upon circumstances that aroused his suspicions. He turned a spotlight upon the rear of a tavern building, whereupon he observed a man 'break and run north between the buildings.' As he pursued, he heard an automobile start up and drive away at high speed. He gave chase and fired four shots at the automobile. The following testimony and dialogue followed, prior to which there had been no identification made of the fleeing person, other than that he was white and approximately five feet tall.

'Q. All right. Did you yell any command to him?

A. I yelled for Robbie Bonds to stop. I told . . .

MR. CARSON: I am going to object . . .

A. . . . Ribbie, I said stop.

MR. CARSON: Your Honor, to Robbie Bonds stopping, it hasn't been stablished that Robbie Bonds was the one that running. (sic). That is a conclusion on the officer's part.

THE COURT: It wouldn't be a conclusion if he knew him, and said he recognized him.

MR. CARSON: It hasn't been established yet, Your Honor, that he had known him.

THE COURT: I think it is probably premature. I will order the answer stricken and the jury will completely disregard it. You can lay the proper foundation for it.

MR. KREMER: All right.

Q. Do you know the deendant, Robbie Bonds?

A. Yes, sir, I do.

Q. Do you see him in Court today?

A. He is sitting next to, in the gray suit.

MR. KREMER: All right, Your Honor, may the record show that the witness has identified the defendant, Robbie Bonds.

THE COURT: All right. Go ahead.

Q. Now do you know the other defendant, Larry Stotts?

A. No, sir, that's the first time I seen him was during this case.

[258 Ind. 243] Q. All right. Now how is it that you know Robbie Bonds?

A. I've arrested him prior, before this, I've arrest (sic) him before.

MR. CARSON: Now at this time, Your Honor, the defendant, Robbie Bonds, would move for a discharge, or a mistrial on this particular charge because the State has indirectly put this man's record in evidence when he has not taken the stand and opened the door for such evidence.

THE COURT: The motion is overruled. The answer is ordered stricken from the record. The jury is ordered to completely disregard the answer and put it completely

Page 315

out of your mind. All right, now let's get on with the case.

Q. You had seen Robbie Bonds before?

A. Yes, sir, I know him.

Q. How many times have you seen him?

A. Several times, I've known him approximately ten years.

Q. All right. How would you describe him?

A. Approximately five foot tall, about a hundred and twenty-five pounds.

Q. All right. And can you describe the man you saw running on this particular night?

A. The man was short and he was slim.

Q. And any other description on this particular night?

A. No, sir, not other than the clothing.'

The witness' answer, 'I yelled for Robbie Bonds to stop,' was improper as being not responsive, but it could not be attributed to counsel; nor in view of subsequent identifying testimony, could it have been harmful.

The question, 'How is it that you know Robbie Bonds?' was not, in and of itself, improper. It is altogether appropriate for counsel to present evidence which lends credibility to the testimony of his witness. It, perhaps, was inarticulately phrased, and it did bring forth an answer that was prejudicial to the defendant's rights. We cannot say,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Lindsey v. State, No. 172A29
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 23 May 1972
    ...rule in Indiana is that the granting of a mistrial rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Bonds v. State, Ind., 280 N.E.2d 313 (decided March 30, 1972); Greenwalt v. State, 246 Ind. 608, 209 N.E.2d 254 (1965), and Duke v. State, 49 Ind. 466, 233 N.E.2d 159 (1968). Thereaf......
  • Thomas v. State, No. 2--1073A211
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 July 1975
    ...v. State (1974), Ind., 306 N.E.2d 93, [164 Ind.App. 652] 94; Hunt v. State (1973), Ind., 296 N.E.2d 116, 120; Bonds v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 241, 280 N.E.2d 313, 315--316; Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 271 N.E.2d 411, 416; Barker v. State (1957), 238 Ind. 271, 277--278, 150 N.E.......
  • Buckley v. State, No. 2--1173A245
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 January 1975
    ...N.E.2d 345; Bennett v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 827; Pinkerton v. State (1972), Ind., 283 N.E.2d 376; Bonds v. State (1972), 280 N.E.2d 313; Hardin v. State (1972), Ind.App., 287 N.E.2d 5 Not to be confused with acts by an accused which violate several criminal statutory offenses ......
  • Hart v. State, No. 272A69
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 August 1972
    ...without a showing to the contrary, we are unable to find reversible error in appellant's allegation.' And in Bonds v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 313, the court 'The general rule of Indiana is that the granting of a mistrial rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge.' (Cit......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Lindsey v. State, No. 172A29
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 23 May 1972
    ...rule in Indiana is that the granting of a mistrial rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge. Bonds v. State, Ind., 280 N.E.2d 313 (decided March 30, 1972); Greenwalt v. State, 246 Ind. 608, 209 N.E.2d 254 (1965), and Duke v. State, 49 Ind. 466, 233 N.E.2d 159 (1968). Thereaf......
  • Thomas v. State, No. 2--1073A211
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 July 1975
    ...v. State (1974), Ind., 306 N.E.2d 93, [164 Ind.App. 652] 94; Hunt v. State (1973), Ind., 296 N.E.2d 116, 120; Bonds v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 241, 280 N.E.2d 313, 315--316; Summerlin v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 652, 271 N.E.2d 411, 416; Barker v. State (1957), 238 Ind. 271, 277--278, 150 N.E.......
  • Buckley v. State, No. 2--1173A245
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 January 1975
    ...N.E.2d 345; Bennett v. State (1973), Ind.App., 304 N.E.2d 827; Pinkerton v. State (1972), Ind., 283 N.E.2d 376; Bonds v. State (1972), 280 N.E.2d 313; Hardin v. State (1972), Ind.App., 287 N.E.2d 5 Not to be confused with acts by an accused which violate several criminal statutory offenses ......
  • Hart v. State, No. 272A69
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 August 1972
    ...without a showing to the contrary, we are unable to find reversible error in appellant's allegation.' And in Bonds v. State (1972), Ind., 280 N.E.2d 313, the court 'The general rule of Indiana is that the granting of a mistrial rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge.' (Cit......
  • 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