Bryant v. State
Decision Date | 29 April 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 29080,29080 |
Citation | 233 Ind. 274,118 N.E.2d 894 |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Parties | BRYANT v. STATE |
Robert A. Buhler, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Thomas M. Crowdus, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, James R. Bryant, with one Harold Harris, was charged by affidavit in the Allen Circuit Court, with robbing one Earl E. Doering, of $14 in money of the United States, one bill-fold and one gold ring of the value of $50, by violence and by putting said Doering in fear, under section 10-4101, Burns' 1942 Repl.
The sufficiency of the affidavit is not questioned in this court.
Without a plea, the cause was set for trial on April 21, 1953, and by agreement it was heard by the court without the intervention of a jury, resulting in a finding of guilty of robbery as charged and that the defendant is less than 21 years of age. The judgment of guilty was duly rendered and the appellant was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for a period of not less than one year nor more than ten years.
A motion for a new trial was duly filed on the 22nd day of May, 1953, and was overruled on June 3, 1953.
The motion for new trial is that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law. These reasons are not discussed in appellant's brief, and therefore we consider them as waived.
The motion also questions alleged error of law in sustaining objections of the State to certain questions asked by the defendant on cross-examination and re-cross-examination of state's witness, Donald Heater and other witnesses. We find no error in the rulings on objections made in the matter of the examinations and cross-examinations of the other witnesses above mentioned, but feel that we must consider the alleged errors presented in the cross-examinations of state's witness, Donald Heater.
Defendant also properly presents a question concerning the overruling of his objection to a question asked by the state of its rebuttal witnesses, Edgar J. Prasse and Orvin T. Workinger, which we must consider.
It is shown by the evidence that Donald Heater, was with the appellant and one Harold Harris when the crime charged, was committed. He testified as a witness for the state. On cross-examination he was asked by appellant's attorney as follows:
'The Court: Objection sustained.
'Mr. Reiber: To which the state objects for the reason it has no bearing.
'The Court: Objection sustained.
'
'Mr. Reiber: The state objects for the reason that it has no bearing upon his credibility in any manner whatsoever, nor on the guilt or innocence of this defendant.
'Mr. Lincoln: If the man is a thief we have a right to show it.
'The Court: Objection sustained.
'
'The Court: Objection sustained.'
The defense then proceeded to ask this state's witness additional questions on cross-examination covering eight additional pages of appellant's brief to each of which the court sustained objections.
This court in Lavengood v. Lavengood, 1947, 225 Ind. 206, at page 214 et seq., 73 N.E.2d 685, at page 688, has stated the law with reference to the cross-examination of a witness thus:
'* * * A general rule applicable to the cross-examination of a witness, has been stated as follows:
70 C.J., Witnesses § 921, p. 762, 763; City of South Bend v. Hardy, 1884, 98 Ind. 577, 49 Am.Rep. 792; Kell v. State, 1924, 194 Ind. 374, 376, 377, 142 N.E. 865; Pierson v. State, 1919, 188 Ind. 239, 243, 244, 245, 123 N.E. 118.
1946, Repl. § 2-1725.
'* * *
The questions noted above along with many others too numerous to copy in this opinion were proper questions on cross-examination and re-cross-examination of the witness, Donald Heater. Sustaining objections to each of them is reversible error. Dotterer v. State, 1909, 172 Ind. 357, 361, 362, 88 N.E. 689, 30 L.R.A.,N.S., 846.
The state called one Edgar J. Prasse as a rebuttal witness and asked him concerning the prosecuting witness as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McCarthy v. State
...to the question of the witness' credibility. Domangue v. State, 654 N.E.2d 1, 3 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); see also Bryant v. State, 233 Ind. 274, 118 N.E.2d 894, 896 (1954) (declaring that cross-examination of a witness who is motivated by financial concerns is properly considered as it affects th......
-
Thomas v. State
...upon such material matter is reversible error. Acker v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 466, 158 N.E.2d 790. In Bryant v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 274, 118 N.E.2d 894, the court specifically held that an offer of leniency in punishment affects a witness' credibility and makes the intent and motive of ......
-
Jarvis v. State
...(21) times in five states. Defendant claims that this line of questioning is similar to that attempted in Bryant v. State, (1954) 233 Ind. 274, 277, 118 N.E.2d 894, 895-96, where we reversed the conviction. In Bryant the accomplice was not permitted to answer a question concerning his arres......
-
Haeger v. State
...a right and not a mere privilege, and a denial of cross-examination upon such material matter is reversible error. Bryant v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 274, 278, 118 N.E.2d 894; Henry v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 14, 20, 146 N.E. 822; Marjason v. State (1947), 225 Ind. 652, 654, 75 N.E.2d Acker v.......