Bozeman v. State
| Decision Date | 18 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45S00-8610-CR-00871,45S00-8610-CR-00871 |
| Citation | 526 N.E.2d 1173 |
| Parties | James E. BOZEMAN, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William L. Touchette, Appellate Public Defender, Crown Point, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Webster, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant-Appellant James L. Bozeman was found guilty following a jury trial of the crimes of Robbery and Attempted Confinement, both class B felonies. Bozeman was sentenced by the trial court to two fifteen (15) year concurrent sentences.
The only issue presented by Bozeman in this direct appeal is the alleged misconduct of the deputy prosecutor during final argument. Specifically, Bozeman contends the deputy prosecutor misstated the evidence, stated personal opinions as to the credibility of witnesses, and made improper arguments calculated to influence the passions and prejudices of the jury. Part of Bozeman's defense was that he did not take part in this robbery but that one William Hill did and that Bozeman was mistaken for him. Police were never able to find William Hill, nor anyone who knew of his existence. During closing argument the prosecutor referred to this fact and told the jury the reason William Hill couldn't be found was that he didn't exist since he was a figment of Bozeman's accomplice, Bernard Gibson's, imagination. Other statements were made about the fact there was an inconsistency in testimony about some tools and about changing a license plate. The prosecutor pointed out this conflict in the testimony and stated the defense's explanation could not be believed. The prosecutor made similar statements about Bozeman's intoxication, about an attempt to create an alibi, and about inconsistencies in Bernard Gibson's statement that Bozeman was not involved in the robbery. The prosecutor also made the statement that not all people who take an oath tell the truth. Bozeman claims the deputy prosecutor misstated the evidence that the differences are so slight in view of the witness' direct testimony implicating Bozeman that it does not rise to the point of reversible error. The robbery of the victim took from twenty-five to thirty minutes and included a threat to kill the victim and an attempt by the robbers to take her with them since they could not find a room to lock her in when they left. She agreed to go into the bathroom and not come out but this did not satisfy them and they took her to the parking lot at gunpoint and ordered her into their vehicle. She refused to get in and backed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mendenhall v. State
...Ind. 5, 291 N.E.2d 686, 698 (1973). A contemporaneous objection is required to preserve an issue for appellate review. Bozeman v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1173, 1174 (Ind.1988) ( “[T]o preserve an alleged error for review, a timely objection must be made.”); see Bald v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1170, 117......
-
Grey v. State
...1385. Likewise, appellant's failure to object at trial to statements made to the jury constitutes waiver of the issues. Bozeman v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1173. We find no error. The post-conviction court noted that the three statements made by the prosecutor, when read in context, w......
-
Berry v. State
...While it is true that the failure to make a timely objection at trial will result in waiver of an issue on appeal, Bozeman v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1173, we will address the merits of Berry's argument because it is necessary to our disposition of his claim of ineffective assistance......
-
Lowrance v. State
...criminal proceedings. Lowrance has waived any error by failing to object to the admission of the document in question. Bozeman v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1173. Therefore, we find no Whether the trial court committed sentencing error by imposing concurrent presumptive sentences? As no......