Cambron v. State, 274S44

Citation322 N.E.2d 712, 262 Ind. 660
Case DateFebruary 19, 1975
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 712

322 N.E.2d 712
262 Ind. 660
Jimmy Ray CAMBRON, Appellant,
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 274S44.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Feb. 19, 1975.

[262 Ind. 662]

Page 713

Robert J. Mahoney, Isadore D. Rosenfeld, South Bend, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Ind., John H. Meyers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

Appellant, Jimmy Ray Cambron, was indicted for first degree murder, I.C.1971, 35--13--4--1, being Burns § 10--3401. In a trial by jury in LaPorte Circuit Court, Judge Alban M. Smith presiding, appellant was found guilty of second degree murder, I.C.1971, 35--1--54--1, being Burns § 10--3404, and sentenced to fifteen to twenty-five years imprisonment.

He appeals on two grounds: (1) that the court erred in admitting into evidence two photographs; (2) that the evidence independent of appellant's out-of-court confession was insufficient to establish the corpus delicti and to support the verdict.

The following is a statement of the facts as presented by the State. On December 2, 1972, appellant and a friend, Simmons, were driving around and drinking. They stopped at Baumgartner's house, and he asked them to take him out either to cash his pension check or to buy some liquor.

Page 714

They drove him to several stores but none would cash his check. Finally, he bought a six-pack of beer and a fifth of whiskey, and all three went back to his house to drink. After thirty minutes to an hour, Simmons suddenly got upset and kicked Baumgartner, who grabbed Simmons' shoulder and fell to the floor. Simmons took his wallet and keys from his pocket. At that point, either Simmons or appellant or both struck Baumgartner eleven blows with a meat tenderizer from his [262 Ind. 663] kitchen. Appellant carried out the victim's rifle and Simmons took his wallet, a radio and some cigarettes.

They drove away and saw two girls and a boy whom they knew hitchhiking. They agreed to drive them to their destination. On the way there, near a bridge, appellant told Simmons to throw the tenderizer out the window, and he did so. Appellant almost got into a fight with the boy, but Simmons stopped him. They dropped the hitchhikers off and retraced some of their route. Near the same bridge, but on the opposite side of the street, Simmons threw the wallet and keys out of the car.

Soon thereafter, they were involved in a traffic accident. Simmons got into an argument with the other driver and hit him, but appellant intervened. Then appellant got into a fight with an acquaintance who was heckling him. When the police arrived at the scene of the accident, they arrested appellant for disorderly conduct and public intoxication. He was released the next morning, but, on December 4th, officers came to the location where appellant and his father were working and took them to the Dectective Bureau. At first, appellant denied any part in the homicide, but, during the third interrogation, he admitted that he, too, struck Baumgartner with the tenderizer. He said that Simmons needed money and suggested that they rob Baumgartner and that they took Baumgartner to cash his check with the intention of robbing him. He said that after Simmons had struck Baumgartner with the tenderizer, he moved slightly and moaned, and Simmons told appellant to finish him off. Appellant said he grabbed the tenderizer and struck Baumgartner on the head three or four times. At this point in the questioning, appellant's father interrupted and asked that the interrogation end. At trial, an officer testified to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
30 cases
  • Willoughby v. State, 49S00-8705-CR-461
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • April 10, 1990
    ...the rule is to reduce the risk of convicting a defendant based on his confession for a crime that did not occur. Cambron v. State (1975), 262 Ind. 660, 665, 322 N.E.2d 712, 715. Other justifications include the reduction of confessions produced by coercive tactics and the encouragement of t......
  • Vanway v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • July 26, 1989
    ...the corpus delicti rule was inapplicable. The purpose of the rule was expressed by Justice DeBruler in Cambron v. State (1975), 262 Ind. 660, 665, 322 N.E.2d 712, 715: In order to avoid the risk of convicting someone for a crime which he confessed, but which never occurred, a confession mus......
  • Landers v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • July 31, 1975
    ...issue' (Kiefer v. State (1958), 239 Ind. 103, 153 N.E.2d 899). Also see, Patterson v. State (1975), Ind., 324 N.E.2d 482; Cambron v. State (1975), Ind., 322 N.E.2d 712; Sexton v. State (1974), Ind., 319 N.E.2d 829; Hubbard v. State (1974), Ind., 313 N.E.2d Schmidt v. State, supra, governs d......
  • Swafford v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • May 28, 1981
    ...specific crime charged has actually been committed by someone. Ross v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 471, 376 N.E.2d 1117; Cambron v. State, (1975) 262 Ind. 660, 322 N.E.2d 712. The state is not required to prove the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, and the requirement may be satisfied by......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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