Byrd v. State
| Decision Date | 05 March 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 30468,30468 |
| Parties | James Howard BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
James Howard Byrd, pro se.
John Dillon, Atty. Gen., Carl E. Van Dorn, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant has petitioned for a belated appeal. We have granted a number of extensions of time for that purpose.
The record shows that the petitioner was found guilty after a jury trial on May 14, 1963 of inflicting physical injuries with a deadly weapon while attempting to commit a robbery. As a pauper, he was furnished counsel During the trial. His attorney filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled. Thereafter, the court appointed Earl C. Kline, an attorney of Jackson County, for the purposes of making an appeal to this Court. Thereafter Mr. Kline became ill and later died. The time within which to take an appeal had expired, and thereupon this Court directed the Public Defender to show cause why he should not represent the appellant in a belated appeal. The Public Defender has made his report, along with a transcript which was made of the evidence, and states he has searched the record to determine whether he could find any merit for such appeal.
The motion for a new trial, which is part of the record herein, was predicated on error of law occurring during the trial. One of the alleged specifications was that prejudicial evidence was erroneously admitted during the trial to the effect that the defendant had committed other crimes besides the crime for which he was charged. An examination of the record reveals that this was evidence which showed that the automobile and the revolver which were used in the crime charged had been obtained by appellant, the defendant below, by stealing the automobile the day prior to the crime and breaking into a building to get the gun. We think this is competent evidence. It is always proper to show that the instruments used in a crime were owned or possessed by the defendant. Corroborative evidence of how and where he obtained such instruments is certainly proper. There was no error in the admission of this testimony.
We further find that the court, in its instruction number 13, specifically instructed the jury to disregard any evidence of the commission of crimes other than those charged in the affidavit.
The only other error alleged in the motion for a new trial is the refusal to give the defendant's tendered...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rocoff v. Lancella, 20599
...by other instructions which were given. See: Greenwalt v. State (1965) 246 Ind. 608, 209 N.E.2d 254, 210 N.E.2d 373; Byrd v. State (1965) 246 Ind. 255, 204 N.E.2d 651. Similarly, appellants' instruction number 2, which concerned the assumption of risk, was substantially covered in the Court......
-
Thornton v. Pender
... ... Missouri-Kansas-Texas Ry. Co., (8th Cir. 1972) 454 F.2d 25; Pistolesi v. Staton, (4th Cir. 1973) 481 F.2d 1218; Desselle v. State, (1976) La.App., 328 So.2d 389; Munson v. State Dept. of Highways, (1975) 96 Idaho 529, 531 P.2d 1174; Kray v. Ricci, (1973) 14 Ill.App.3d 904, 303 ... ...
-
Mack v. State
...two crimes are related. Woodard v. State (1977), Ind., 366 N.E.2d 1160; Maldonado v. State, supra, 355 N.E.2d 843. In Byrd v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 255, 204 N.E.2d 651, the Supreme Court held that the trial court properly admitted evidence which showed that the automobile and the revolver ......
-
Davison v. Williams
...or covered in substance by other instructions given. Greenwalt v. State of Indiana (1965) Ind., 209 N.E.2d 254; Byrd v. State of Indiana (1965) Ind., 204 N.E.2d 651; Beatty v. State of Indiana (1963) 244 Ind. 598, 603, 194 N.E.2d 727. Also the instructions given in a case must be considered......