Carroll v. State, No. 574S98

Docket NºNo. 574S98
Citation263 Ind. 86, 324 N.E.2d 809
Case DateMarch 24, 1975
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 809

324 N.E.2d 809
263 Ind. 86
Melon CARROLL, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 574S98.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 24, 1975.

[263 Ind. 87] M. Daniel Friedland, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Gary M. Crist, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

DeBRULER, Justice.

Appellant, Melon Carroll, was convicted of Rape, I.C.1971, 35--13--4--3, being Burns § 10--4201, and Kidnapping, I.C.1971, 35--1--55--1, being Burns § 10--2901, in a trial before Special Judge David McNamar. He was sentenced to a term of two to twenty-one years for Rape and to life imprisonment for Kidnapping. His motion to correct errors was overruled. On appeal, he argues that there was not sufficient evidence to support either of the two convictions.

The evidence presented by the prosecuting witness was that she left her job at the hospital at or a little after midnight, August

Page 810

2nd--3rd, 1973. She walked to the hospital employees' parking lot. As she approached her car, appellant jumped over the parking lot guardrail and walked over to her. He asked her to unlock the car and get in. She refused, and he grabbed her around the neck. She opened the car, and got in the back seat. Appellant got in after her and asked her to take off her clothes, and she refused. He asked her for her money, and she said she did not have any. And then he [263 Ind. 88] repeated both demands several times. The witness could not get out of the car because it was a two-door car and she was in the back seat. She kept talking to appellant and asking him to let her go. She offered him the car, if he would let her go. She told him that the lot was guarded and that the guard would come by momentarily. Appellant got into the front seat and drove out of the lot.

Appellant had difficulty driving the car, drove around a little and then turned into an alley, where again he asked her to take off her clothes and to give him some money. Another car turned into the alley and then pulled out. The witness suggested they go to her apartment because she knew her roommate would be there and could help her. But, he said, 'No, if we go to your apartment, you will call the police.' Instead, he drove to his apartment. The witness kept asking where they were going and what he was going to do and suggesting that they talk about it and that he let her go.

She went with him into his apartment building. There was no one around. She continued to talk to him about this being wrong and finally made him promise to let her go if they had intercourse. He undressed her, and they had intercourse. Afterwards she started dressing and reminded him of his promise. He again said he wanted money, and she gave him forty cents, which was all she had. He gave her his phone number and told her to call him...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • State v. Rusk, 142
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • January 13, 1981
    ...(1897); Curtis v. State, 236 Ga. 362, 223 S.E.2d 721 (1976); People v. Murphy, 124 Ill.App.2d 71, 260 N.E.2d 386 (1970); Carroll v. State, 263 Ind. 86, 324 N.E.2d 809 (1975); Fields v. State, 293 So.2d 430 (Miss.1974); State v. Beck, 368 S.W.2d 490 (Mo.1963); Cascio v. State, 147 Neb. 1075,......
  • Stowers v. State, 1176S373
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 21, 1977
    ...and kidnapping need not consist of the use or display of a weapon. Hammer v. State (1976), Ind.,354 N.E.2d 170; Carroll v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 86, 324 N.E.2d Appellant's Instruction No. 2 was refused by the trial court. This was a special instruction tendered by appellant which stated: '......
  • Buchanan v. State, 3--675A104
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 27, 1976
    ...of an actual attempt to escape or to fight off the attacker in every conceivable set of circumstances.' Carroll v. State (1975), Ind., 324 N.E.2d 809, at 811. Physical resistance is not necessary where prevented or averted by threats and fear. Beard v. State, In the present case, the eviden......
  • Ballard v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of Evansville, 375S72
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 24, 1975
    ...divested of his lands automatically on conviction, but it required a subsequent proceeding. Avery v. Everett, (1888) 110 N.Y. 317, 18 N.E. [263 Ind. 86] 148 (N.Y.Ct. of Appeals). Thus, an attainted person could devise or demise his lands subject only to the king's right of entry. In other w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • State v. Rusk, No. 142
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Maryland
    • January 13, 1981
    ...(1897); Curtis v. State, 236 Ga. 362, 223 S.E.2d 721 (1976); People v. Murphy, 124 Ill.App.2d 71, 260 N.E.2d 386 (1970); Carroll v. State, 263 Ind. 86, 324 N.E.2d 809 (1975); Fields v. State, 293 So.2d 430 (Miss.1974); State v. Beck, 368 S.W.2d 490 (Mo.1963); Cascio v. State, 147 Neb. 1075,......
  • Stowers v. State, No. 1176S373
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 21, 1977
    ...and kidnapping need not consist of the use or display of a weapon. Hammer v. State (1976), Ind.,354 N.E.2d 170; Carroll v. State (1975), 263 Ind. 86, 324 N.E.2d Appellant's Instruction No. 2 was refused by the trial court. This was a special instruction tendered by appellant which stated: '......
  • Buchanan v. State, No. 3--675A104
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 27, 1976
    ...of an actual attempt to escape or to fight off the attacker in every conceivable set of circumstances.' Carroll v. State (1975), Ind., 324 N.E.2d 809, at 811. Physical resistance is not necessary where prevented or averted by threats and fear. Beard v. State, In the present case, the eviden......
  • Ballard v. Board of Trustees of Police Pension Fund of City of Evansville, No. 375S72
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 24, 1975
    ...divested of his lands automatically on conviction, but it required a subsequent proceeding. Avery v. Everett, (1888) 110 N.Y. 317, 18 N.E. [263 Ind. 86] 148 (N.Y.Ct. of Appeals). Thus, an attainted person could devise or demise his lands subject only to the king's right of entry. In other w......
  • 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