Burnett v. State, 1081S307
Decision Date | 27 October 1981 |
Docket Number | No. 1081S307,1081S307 |
Citation | 426 N.E.2d 1314 |
Parties | Dennis BURNETT, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of Battery, Ind.Code § 35-42-2-1 (Burns 1979) after trial by jury and sentenced to eight (8) years imprisonment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction in an opinion published at 419 N.E.2d 172.
The cause is before us upon Defendant's Petition to Transfer. For the reasons stated below, we grant Transfer, vacate the judgment and opinion of the Court of Appeals, and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
After the jury deliberated for almost six hours, the trial court gave an additional instruction 1 generally referred to as an "Allen Charge" over Defendant's objection. The instruction was identical to an instruction which was given in Guffey v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 386 N.E.2d 692, 695, except that it omitted one sentence thereof. 2
In the recent case of Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107 we treated the subject of "Allen Charges" at length, and we explicitly disapproved the instruction given in Guffey. Notwithstanding the slight omission of one sentence variance in the instruction from the one given in Guffey, it remains subject to the same criticism that we voiced in Lewis, wherein we prescribed the correct procedure under such circumstances:
Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107, 111.
We give limited retrospective application to Lewis v. State, supra, for the reasons expressed in Enlow v. State, (1973) 261 Ind. 348, 303 N.E.2d 658 for giving such retrospective effect to Lawrence v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 306, 286 N.E.2d 830. The "Allen" type instruction is apt to seriously impinge upon the fact finding process by improperly influencing the ultimate vote of one or more of the jurors. As in Enlow, we apply Lewis retrospectively.
261 Ind. at 352, 303 N.E.2d at 660.
Accordingly, Lewis, like Lawrence applies to those cases decided on direct appeal after July 31, 1981, the date Lewis was handed down. Paneitz v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 473, 318 N.E.2d 353; McPhearson v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 468, 318 N.E.2d 355; Prophet v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 312, 315 N.E.2d 699.
Transfer is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals, First District, is ordered vacated; the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Culligan Fyrprotexion, Inc.
...however, approved rereading all of the instructions previously given. Crowdus v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1314; Lewis v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 107. Even rereading all of the instructions previously given appears to be discretiona......
-
Foster v. State
...46, 47 (Ind.1986); Cabell v. State, 461 N.E.2d 1101, 1102 (Ind.1984); Crowdus v. State, 431 N.E.2d 796, 798 (Ind.1982); Burnett v. State, 426 N.E.2d 1314, 1315 (Ind.1981).11 In such cases, the trial court, of course, must still provide the needed correction or supplementation in such a mann......
-
Capitol Builders, Inc. v. Shipley
... ... Capitol's Tendered Final Instructions 3 and 4 and modifying Tendered Final Instruction 5 because the tendered instructions did not correctly state the law as to a builder's tort liability for latent defects in materials ... We find ourselves in a barren wasteland as we ... Crowdus v. State, (1982) Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1314. In both cases, as in Lewis, the problem has been characterized as one occasioned by jury deadlock. And in ... ...
-
Broadus v. State
...Court. Capitol Builders, Inc. v. Shipley (1983), Ind., 455 N.E.2d 1135; Crowdus v. State (1982), Ind., 431 N.E.2d 796; Burnett v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 1314. The following excerpt is the language being challenged in this case; however, it is merely a portion of the lengthier instru......