Bramlett v. State
| Decision Date | 07 October 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 28590.,28590. |
| Citation | 87 N.E.2d 880,227 Ind. 662 |
| Parties | BRAMLETT v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Davis Bramlett was indicted for rape of a female under the age of 16 years.
The Criminal Court No. 2 of Marion County, Saul J. Rabb, J., rendered a judgment of conviction, and defendant appealed.
The Supreme Court, Starr, J., affirmed the judgment, and held that defendant had waived a jury trial and that the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness supported the conviction.Albert Ward, Indianapolis, Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, Ward & Ward, Indianapolis, for appellant.
J. Emmett McManamon, Atty.Gen., Walter O. Lewis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Merl M. Wall, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged by indictment with the crime of rape on a female person under the age of sixteen years as defined by Burns 1942 Repl. § 10-4201. A trial was had before the court which resulted in a finding and judgment of guilty, from which the appeal has been taken.
By his assignment of error the appellant has presented as grounds for reversal the questions hereinafter discussed and decided.
Appellant contends that the record fails to show that he waived his right to a jury trial. The record discloses that the appellant was represented by counsel when his cause was submitted for trial before the court without the intervention of a jury; that neither he nor his counsel demanded a jury, but proceeded without objection to trial before the court. Appellant makes no claim that he was not represented by competent counsel. Under these circumstances the appellant is deemed to have waived his right to a jury trial. Lucas v. State, Ind.Sup., 1949, 86 N.E.2d 682. See also Irwin v. State, 1942, 220 Ind. 228, 41 N.E.2d 809.
Appellant insists that the finding is not sustained by sufficient evidence due to the fact that his conviction rests solely on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecuting witness. It was not necessary that her testimony be corroborated. Thomas v. State, Ind.Sup., 1949, 83 N.E.2d 788;Abshire v. State, 1927, 199 Ind. 474, 158 N.E. 227;Cosilito v. State, 1926, 197 Ind. 419, 151 N.E. 129.
As a further failure of proof appellant claims there was no proof of penetration. This contention is wholly without merit. Without detailing the testimony of the prosecuting witness, it is sufficient to say that she stated definitely that there was penetration. Also at another place in her testimony she stated that appellant had ‘intercourse’ with her. She also testified in detail as to the circumstances under which this intercourse took place. It is clear from all the testimony of the prosecutingwitness that by intercourse she meant sexual intercourse, and the trial court properly so construed it. This court has held that proof of sexual intercourse in the manner as here proved...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
LeFlore v. State
...from a lay witness should be excluded from evidence. See, Gayer v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 113, 210 N.E.2d 852; Bramlett v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 662, 87 N.E.2d 880. In the case at bar, although it could be said that Dunn is an expert on criminal investigation, his opinion as to which facts......
-
Scruggs v. State
...before the court prior to raising this issue on appeal. See Larkin v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 160, 162 N.E.2d 515 and Bramlett v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 662, 87 N.E.2d 880. We find no Erroneous Sentence At the close of his trial by the court, Aaron Scruggs was sentenced as follows: 'Alright,......
-
Scruggs v. State, 3--1273A175
...Scruggs's second contention of error is without merit. See Larkin v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 161, 162 N.E.2d 515 and Bramlett v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 662, 87 N.E.2d 880. III Erroneous Arlene Scruggs's final contention of error concerns a claimed modification of her sentence without her hav......
-
Cunningham v. State
...the modern history of the question of the sufficiency of a waiver of trial by jury may be said to commence with Bramlett v. State, (1949) 227 Ind. 662, 87 N.E.2d 880. There the record did not disclose that the defendant waived a trial by jury, but did disclose that the defendant was represe......