Brooks v. State, 45S03-8808-CR-754
| Decision Date | 18 August 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 45S03-8808-CR-754,45S03-8808-CR-754 |
| Citation | 526 N.E.2d 1171 |
| Parties | Reginald BROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Daniel L. Bella, Appellate Div., Crown Point, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John D. Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
In this case appellant Brooks, nineteen years of age, was charged with molesting in that he performed sexual deviate conduct upon his thirteen year old cousin. The charge was brought pursuant to I.C. 35-42-4-3(c). At the close of the State's case in chief, the court granted Brooks a judgment on the evidence, because the evidence showed that the misconduct did not include successful connection. The court however indicated that he was prepared to submit the case to the jury upon the lesser included offense of molesting by touching with intent to satisfy sexual desires as defined by I.C. 35-42-4-3(d). The court then did so instruct the jury without objection by defense counsel. The jury found appellant guilty of the lesser offense. No complaint to the court's instruction was made in the motion to correct errors.
On appeal, appellant contended that the trial court committed fundamental error in submitting his case to the jury upon a crime with which he was not charged. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction by a split decision, holding that the error of the trial court was not fundamental, and the claim of error was therefore waived on appeal. Brooks v. State (1988), Ind.App., 518 N.E.2d 1109. Transfer is granted.
The charge of molesting upon which Brooks was brought to trial did not include the lesser offense of molesting of which he stands convicted. Buck v. State (1983), Ind., 453 N.E.2d 993. The record of proceedings shows that when the court granted the motion for judgment on the evidence, the trial prosecutor said he wanted to amend the charge by interlineation and was granted a ten minute recess to research and talk with his supervisor. The court then informed the trial prosecutor that he had already written final instructions to submit the lesser class D felony to the jury. No recess was taken and no amendment occurred.
It is elementary that the trial court has no jurisdiction to bring a criminal charge. Walker v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 432, 241 N.E.2d 792. The court here was faced with a failure of proof upon the charge that the defendant was called to defend. There is no authority in the court to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tingle v. State
...the statute was violated, it is fundamental error to change the manner in the instructions to the jury. He also cites Brooks v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1171 for the proposition that the trial court commits fundamental error if it amends a charge on its own motion or initiates additio......
-
Owens v. State
...melded, "it is essential to the fair administration of justice that those roles be restrained to their proper spheres." Brooks v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1171, 1172 (Ind.1988); see also Isaac v. State, 605 N.E.2d 144, 148 (Ind.1992) (a trial judge may not assume an adversarial role); Beatty v. St......
-
Oberst v. State, 14A04-0005-CR-222.
...establish the corpus delicti of the charged crime independent of the defendant's statements) rehg denied; see, e.g., Brooks v. State, 526 N.E.2d 1171, 1172-1173 (Ind.1988) (holding that it was fundamental error to convict the defendant of a crime for which he was not charged). For this reas......
-
Neuhausel v. State, 49A02-8711-CR-00451
...knowingly, by fire or explosion damaged the dwelling of Dorothy Lewis without the consent of Dorothy Lewis. See Brooks v. State (1988), Ind., 526 N.E.2d 1171, 1172-73. Sentence Finally, defendant Neuhausel contends the trial court erroneously failed to consider mitigating circumstances in d......