Bradberry v. State
| Decision Date | 22 May 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 1--873A154,1--873A154 |
| Citation | 311 N.E.2d 437,160 Ind.App. 202 |
| Parties | Martin W. BRADBERRY, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Mark Peden, Foley & Foley, Martinsville, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., of Ind., Robert E. Dwyer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Defendant-appellant Bradberry was charged, in September, 1972, by affidavit in two counts with the crimes of assault with intent to kill and commission of a felony while armed. Bradberry pleaded not guilty and filed a motion for change of judge, which motion was granted. Thereafter a special judge was duly appointed and qualified. In January of 1973 Bradberry filed a motion for change of venue from the county and said motion was denied after a hearing thereon. On May 18, 1973, a second and verified motion for a change of judge was filed by Bradberry. The motion was denied on the same day without the court hearing any evidence thereon.
Trial was had to a jury which rendered its verdict of guilty on each of the counts. A motion to correct errors was timely filed and overruled by the court.
Bradberry has presented seven issues in this appeal. The most critical issue for this court to pass upon is raised in the motion to correct errors, Item 3, which reads as follows, to-wit:
'The court erred in overruling defendant's motion for change of judge filed May 18, 1973, without a hearing thereon.'
Bradberry contends that a defendant has a right to more than one change of venue from the judge if good cause is shown. Bradberry argues that in order to show good cause (bias and prejudice) a hearing must be held in relation to the motion for change of judge so that the trial court will have a proper basis for its ruling and the defendant will have every opportunity to establish the allegations of the motion.
In the case of Burton v. State (1973), Ind., 292 N.E.2d 790, our Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant was entitled in a case punishable by death to a change of venue as a matter of right. Subsequent changes of venue were found to be within the discretion of the trial court. Any subsequent changes are granted only upon an adequate showing of bias and prejudice. In Burton the trial court held a hearing and determined that no change of venue was required and our Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, but emphasized the fact that a hearing was held on the motion. See, also, Dickens v. State (1973), Ind., 295 N.E.2d 613.
This court has recently held, in the case of Knight v. State (1973), Ind.App., 294 N.E.2d 158, that a proper motion for a change of venue should not be ruled upon until a hearing has been had thereon. This court held as follows:
'We are constrained to hold that under Ind.Stat.Ann. § 9--1301 (Burns 1956 Repl.), Criminal Rule 12, and the Supreme Court cases from which we have quoted and on which we rely that the trial court erred in not holding a hearing or allowing such other proof as the court might require to support defendant-appellant's motion for change of venue from the county.'
See, also, Knight v. State (1973), Ind.App., 296 N.E.2d 892.
The basis for our decision in Knight, supra, was that no hearing was held prior to a ruling on the verified motion for a change of venue. The reasoning behind this decision was discussed in the case of Hanrahan v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 325, 241 N.E.2d 143, where our Supreme Court found that the record indicated that the appellant had not been afforded a hearing or any opportunity to present evidence before the trial court overruled a motion for change of venue. The court stated that an uncontroverted, verified motion for a change of venue establishes a prima facie case and that the motion should not be overruled until the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to support his motion with additional evidence. The court concluded as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Underhill v. State
...was no error in the court's failure to hold a hearing. Hanrahan v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 325, 241 N.E.2d 143; Bradberry v. State, (1974) 160 Ind.App. 202, 311 N.E.2d 437. Following the first motion, which defendant tendered in court while under oath, he was accorded the opportunity to pres......
-
Stacks v. State
...motion, is an abuse of discretion and reversible error. Millican v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 363, 300 N.E.2d 359; Bradberry v. State (1974), Ind.App., 311 N.E.2d 437. In Millican v. State, supra, the defendant filed his verified motion for change of venue from the judge after learning tha......
-
Wilson v. State
...his application with additional evidence." Hanrahan v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 325, 241 N.E.2d 143, 148 (county); Bradberry v. State (1974), 160 Ind.App. 202, 311 N.E.2d 437 (judge); Millican v. State (1973), 157 Ind.App. 363, 300 N.E.2d 359 (judge); Knight v. State (1973), 155 Ind.App. 680,......
-
Poindexter v. State
...either the county or the judge may be granted at the discretion of the court if the defendant can show good cause. Bradberry v. State, (1974) 160 Ind.App. 202, 311 N.E.2d 437. In the instant case, the defendant had already been granted one change of judge from The Honorable Andrew Jacobs, S......