Bradford v. State, 582S180
| Decision Date | 21 September 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 582S180,582S180 |
| Citation | 453 N.E.2d 250 |
| Parties | Dury BRADFORD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Walter E. Bravard, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Lisa M. Paunicka, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted, after a jury trial, of Burglary, a class B felony, Ind.Code Sec. 35-43-2-1 (Burns 1979), found to be an Habitual Offender, Ind.Code Sec. 35-50-2-8 (Burns Supp.1982), and sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment.
This direct appeal raises four issues:
1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence other criminal conduct of the Defendant.
2. Whether the trial court erred by failing to arraign the Defendant on the habitual offender count.
3. Whether there was a defect in the verdict form on the habitual offender count.
4. Whether the trial court erred in setting Defendant's trial for a date beyond the seventy (70) day limit imposed by Ind.R.Crim.P. 4(B).
The record disclosed that on September 30, 1980, the Defendant and Michael Carter were riding in an automobile with James Bodie when Bodie was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated. Later, Bodie asked the Defendant to contact and request Nannie Gill, Bodie's grandmother, to make bond for him.
Ms. Gill testified that she observed Defendant and Carter enter the apartment building which she managed and in which Bodie, her grandson, lived. She saw the lights go off and crossed the street to investigate. After observing the Defendant hitting the door of Bodie's apartment with a chair, she left to call the police. Subsequently, she returned to the apartment building and observed Carter exit the building, obtain a piece of pipe, and return to Bodie's apartment where the pipe was used to break the padlock on the door. She then observed Defendant and Carter carrying clothes and preparing to steal a television set from Bodie's apartment.
At that time, the police arrived and found Carter, pipe in hand, and the Defendant coming down the steps. As the officers encountered Carter and the Defendant, an object, later identified as Bodie's watch, was dropped. The officers testified that when they entered Bodie's apartment they discovered clothing stacked in two piles and a ransacked chest of drawers.
Carter testified that when he and the Defendant arrived at Bodie's apartment building, the two separated and that Defendant had had no involvement in the crime.
* * *
Prior to the trial the Defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude mention in the presence of jurors or prospective jurors of "any alleged prior criminal activity not directly related to the facts and circumstances at trial" and "any alleged threats made to prospective State's witness ...." The motion was granted.
During the State's examination of Witness Gill the following exchange took place:
"Q. Okay. All right. Now, referring your attention to the evening of September thirtieth (30th), 1980, do you "A. Yes, sir.
remember seeing Mr. Bradford on that evening?
Defendant objected and moved for a mistrial, but the motion was denied. Defendant contends that the State violated the court's order on the motion in limine, that the testimony was irrelevant, that the testimony substantially prejudiced the Defendant, and that his motion for a mistrial should have been granted.
The denial of a motion for mistrial will be reversed only upon a showing of an abuse of discretion by the trial court. The case must be reversed only if the statement was so prejudicial as to have placed the defendant in "a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected." Morgan v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 964, 967. The declaration of a mistrial is an extreme action which is warranted only "when no other action can be expected to remedy the situation." Gambill v. State, (1982) Ind., 436 N.E.2d 301, 304; Hicks v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 973, 975. The burden is on the defendant to show that he was harmed and placed in grave peril by the denial of the mistrial motion. White v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 64, 77-78, 272 N.E.2d 312, 319-20.
Defendant correctly notes that in certain cases in which an uncalled for response by a witness notifies a jury that a defendant has been convicted of prior crimes the testimony may so irrevocably prejudice a jury that a mistrial would be necessitated. Fisher v. State, (1973) 259 Ind. 633, 642, 291 N.E.2d 76, 81. However, in the case at bar, no reference was made that would indicate that Defendant had been convicted of prior crimes. Further, Ms. Gill's testimony had not been induced by the Prosecutor's question, nor was her testimony intended as an "evidentiary harpoon."
In a case such as this, an admonition to the jury is warranted, and the court asked, "Do you want the jury to be admonished about the fight, to disregard it?", but the Defendant opted to stand on his mistrial motion; hence no admonishment was given.
Inasmuch as the witness' remark was not solicited and apparently made without any design to harm the Defendant, and because Defendant failed to show that he was placed in a position of grave peril and declined the offered admonishment, it cannot be said that error was committed.
The Defendant was originally charged on September 30, 1980. On December 4, 1980, the State amended its Information by adding an allegation that the Defendant was an habitual offender pursuant to Ind.Code Sec. 35-50-2-8 (Burns Supp.1982); however, Defendant contends that a failure to arraign him on the habitual offender count constituted reversible error.
The arraignment is the procedure of bringing the accused before the court, notifying him, usually by reading the information or indictment, of the charges against him, and then asking for his plea. Rodgers v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 57, 58. It is unclear from the record whether the Defendant waived a reading of the charge against him on the habitual offender count. The Defendant contends that there was no arraignment, yet the record suggests that an arraignment on the habitual offender count did take place as evidenced by the following exchange between the court, the Prosecutor, Mr. Winingham, and the Defense "THE COURT: All right, we'll show the State's Motion to Amend--yeah, it's on the minutes of the Court records, but it hasn't been physically done on the, on the Information. So at this time the Court will sustain the, again sustain the motion of the Defense--or, I mean--of the State and show his name to be D-u-r-y.
Attorney, Mr. Plath, regarding a motion to correct the spelling of the Defendant's first name on the Information:
In addition, the motion to correct errors did not present this alleged error. Consequently, error, if any, has been waived. Akins v. State, (1981) 429 N.E.2d 232, 236; Guardiola v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 404, 405, 375 N.E.2d 1105, 1107; Ind.R.Tr.P. 59 (B, G). Further, the Defendant was able to consult with his attorney, declared that he was prepared to go forward on the date of the trial, made no request for a continuance, and failed to show that he was prejudiced in any way by a failure to arraign him on the habitual offender count, if, in fact, there had been no arraignment. It is always the appellant's burden to show affirmatively that the error complained of was prejudicial. Yager v. State, (1982) Ind., 437 N.E.2d 454, 463; Badelle v. State, (1982) Ind., 434 N.E.2d 872, 878. Defendant has failed to show that he was harmed in any way. We find no error.
Upon the habitual offender charge the jury returned the following verdict:
Defendant argues that inasmuch as an habitual offender charge is not a crime, the defendant cannot be "guilty." For the court to have accepted this verdict, Defendant argues, was fundamental error.
This Court recently addressed the same issue in Taylor v. State, (1981), Ind., 420 N.E.2d 1231, 1235. In Taylor, the Court held that in an habitual offender proceeding the jury's use of the word "guilty" is technically incorrect, but does not constitute reversible error.
Defendant correctly notes that there is no crime of being an habitual offender. The jury's task in the habitual offender proceeding is merely to determine whether the defendant has, in fact, been convicted and sentenced on two prior felony charges. Williams v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 793, 795. In the verdict, the jury determined that the Defendant had "two (2) prior unrelated felony convictions." The addition of the word "guilty" in the verdict is mere surplusage.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Isom v. State
...of other criminal activity on Isom's part. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial. In a similar situation in Bradford v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 250, the trial court overruled the defendant's motion for mistrial based on an alleged violation of an order in limine regarding th......
-
Sutton v. State
...for mistrial lies within the sound discretion of the trial court. Pillow v. State (1985), Ind., 479 N.E.2d 1301, 1306; Bradford v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 250, 252; Ramos v. State (1982), Ind., 433 N.E.2d 757, 759; Morgan v. State (1981), 275 Ind. 666, 671, 419 N.E.2d 964, 967. We wi......
-
Davidson v. State
...a showing that appellant thereby was placed in a position of grave peril to which she should not have been subjected. Bradford v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 250. Noting that most of the paternity evidence arose in the context of her A.F.D.C. applications, appellant argues it was introdu......
-
Edwards v. State
...him, usually by reading the information or indictment, of the charges against him, and then asking for his plea. Bradford v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 250. This Court recognizes arraignment for habitual offender counts as the appropriate procedure, but, in the absence of prejudice, the......