Bush v. State

Citation374 N.E.2d 564,176 Ind.App. 164
Decision Date18 April 1978
Docket NumberNo. 1-1077A258,1-1077A258
PartiesSteven Dale BUSH, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Gerald G. Angermeier, Jewell, Crump, Angermeier, Columbus, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Alembert W. Brayton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ROBERTSON, Judge.

The defendant-appellant Bush appeals his conviction of robbery by raising four issues, none of which show error.

Facts from the trial show that Helen Swinehart, an employee of Danner's Store in Columbus, Indiana, testified that a male individual (Bush) came to her checkout counter to purchase a pair of sunglasses and some gum. Bush came to the checkout counter a second time, after a lapse of approximately ten minutes. On the second trip through the checkout counter, he demanded the money in the cash drawer and warned Mrs. Swinehart that she had "five seconds." Bush then grabbed currency, checks, and credit card receipts from the cash drawer of the checkout counter and fled.

A short time later, Bush was stopped by an Indiana State Police Trooper when he was observed driving in a reckless manner by the trooper. After stopping Bush, the trooper heard a dispatch concerning a robbery at Danner's Store which gave a description of the car used to flee the scene. The car driven by Bush matched this description. Subsequent to his arrest, Bush gave permission to search his automobile wherein cash and personal checks made out to Danner's were found under the seat.

Bush was delivered into the custody of the Columbus Police, who had responded to a radio call by the State Trooper. Bush was then taken to the Law Enforcement Building in Columbus where he signed a waiver of his constitutional rights and made two statements, one written and one recorded. Additionally, Mrs. Swinehart made a positive identification of Bush from a photographic lineup.

At trial, the tape recorded statement by Bush was introduced into evidence. The entire tape recording was heard by the jury over the objection of defense counsel. Objection was made to a portion of the recording relating to the purchase of drugs by Bush from a non-medical source. Furthermore, the defendant objected to the introduction into evidence of his picture used in the photographic lineup as immaterial and irrelevant evidence.

The trial resulted in the jury finding Bush guilty of robbery.

Bush first argues error in the trial court's allowing his "mug" shot into evidence. Bush did not adequately preserve this issue for appeal at the trial level. There was no objection to the photographs as prejudicially indicating a previous arrest or conviction, but merely as irrelevant, immaterial, and unnecessary identification of the defendant. Bush may not support his argument on appeal with an objection which was not made at trial. Ray v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 495, 120 N.E.2d 176. Additionally, his motion to correct errors failed to specify the objection made at trial, thus waiving any appeal. Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rules 59(A)(5), 59(B), 59(G). Bennett v. State (1973), 159 Ind.App. 59, 304 N.E.2d 827.

Bush next argues error in the trial court's allowing the entire tape recording into evidence. Even if it were concluded that the introduction of the purchase of drugs from a non-medical source into evidence resulted in the inference by the jury that defendant had been convicted of the illegal purchase of drugs, in view of the independent overwhelming evidence of Bush's guilt of the charge of robbery, we believe any such error did not contribute to the verdict obtained. Saffold v. State (1974), Ind.App., 317 N.E.2d 814; Moore v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Downing v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 25, 1978
    ...Verdict. Since Downing introduced evidence after his motion was denied, he waived any error in the court's ruling. Bush v. State (1978) Ind.App., 374 N.E.2d 564, 566 Citing Parker v. State (1976) Ind., 358 N.E.2d II. Admissibility of Prior Contacts Downing next argues that the trial court e......
  • Moore v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • October 23, 1978
    ...Ind., 373 N.E.2d 1101; Sypniewski v. State (1977), Ind., 368 N.E.2d 1359;Parker v. State (1976), Ind., 358 N.E.2d 110; Bush v. State (1978), Ind.App., 374 N.E.2d 564. See also Ind. Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule ISSUE NO. 2 A summary of the evidence most favorable to the State discloses the......
  • Carvey v. Indiana Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 18, 1978
    ... ... Court on January 21, 1976, and personally served a copy thereof upon adversary counsel within an hour thereof and was thereupon no longer in a state of default, all of which appears by the affidavit of defendant attached hereto and made a part hereof ... 2. That adversary counsel failed to bring ... ...

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT