Cichos v. State
| Decision Date | 02 July 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 29954,29954 |
| Parties | Ronald Richard CICHOS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Warren Burchanan, Rockville, John P. Price, Cleon H. Foust, Indianapolis, for appellant, Hollowell, Hamill & Price, Indianapolis, of counsel.
Edwin K. Streers, Atty. Gen., Richard C. Johnson, Patrick D. Sullivan and William D. Ruckelshaus, Deputy Attys. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was charged by a second amended affidavit in two (2) counts with (a) violation of Acts 1939, ch. 48, § 52, p. 289, being § 47-2001(a), Burns' 1952 Replacement, defining the offense of Reckless Homicide and (b) with violation of Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 2, p. 447, being § 10-3405, Burns' 1956 Replacement, defining the offense of involuntary manslaughter. Trial was had by jury resulting in the verdict finding the defendant guilty of the offense of reckless homicide as charged in count one of the affidavit. Thereafter, on February 16, 1960, the court sentenced the appellant to a term of not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years in the Indiana Reformatory and fined him in the sum of $500 plus costs of the trial.
The record in this cause is so voluminous that it is almost impossible to summarize without unduly extending this opinion. Appellant's original brief consisting of over 450 pages, appellee's brief consisting of 55 pages and the transcript consisting of 1203 pages.
It will suffice to say that the sufficiency of the charges were challenged by motions to quash the affidavits, appellant also filed among others, motions to produce and suppress evidence, a motion for mistrial, a motion in arrest of judgment, a motion for a Venire De Novo and motion for a new trial containing five causes, 107 specifications and six accompanying affidavits.
Appellant's assignment of error is the single ground that '[t]he Court ereed in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.'
Basically the contentions here to be determined may be narrowed to the alleged error in permitting into evidence the results of certain blood tests allegedly made from samples taken from the appellant and from alleged error in refusing to give certain instructions, hereinafter discussed, tendered by the appellant.
The factual situation preceding the events culminating in the institution of the prosecution, from which stems this appeal, may be briefly summarized as follows:
On September 28, 1958, appellant was involved in an automobile collision on U. S. Highway No. 36 about one mile west of Bellmore in Parke County, Indiana. Such collision resulting in the deaths of Mr. and Mrs. Frank Barber and the injury of appellant, he suffering a bilateral fracture of the lower jaw, laceration of the scalp, cerebral concussion rendering him unconscious and a fracture of the right forearm. The collision occurred at approximately 9:30 o'clock a.m.
Prior to the collision appellant had stopped at Sparks' restaurant in Hollandsburg. While there, he and several other persons, including one William Lowe, drank coffee. After drinking coffee and spending fifteen or twenty minutes in the restaurant while in the process, appellant and Lowe left the restaurant, appellant getting into his car and driving off in the direction of Bellmore.
Within minutes after leaving the restaurant appellant was involved in the head-on collision resulting in the deaths and injuries heretofore mentioned.
The instructions tendered by the appellant and refused by the court numbered 16, 21, 24, 25, 26, 42, 49 and 63, in pertinent part, read as follows:
'Proof that the accident which resulted in the deaths of Frank Glen Barber and Shella Mae Barber arose out of the inadvertence, lack of attention, forgetfulness or thoughtlessness of the defendant, Ronald Richard Cichos, as the driver of the other automobile involved in the accident, or from an error of judgment on the part of the said Ronald Richard Cichos, will not support a charge of reckless homicide or of involuntary manslaughter, and in that event you must find the defendant not guilty of the charges of reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter.'
'Members of the jury, I instruct you, that if Ronald Richard Cichos was merely negligent in operating his automobile, then he is not criminally liable, and your verdict must be not guilty.'
'I instruct you that if Ronald Richard Cichos due to error of judgment caused the collision, then he cannot be guilty of reckless homicide or involuntary manslaughter, and your verdict must be not guilty.'
'I instruct you if Ronald Richard Cichos due to foregetfulness or thoughtlessness, caused the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeVaney v. State, 671S192
...reckless disregard for the safety of others'? We think not. Such an occurrence could be completely accidental. See Cichos v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 187, 184 N.E.2d 1; Shorter v. State (1954), 234 Ind. 1, 122 N.E.2d 847; Beeman v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 683, 115 N.E.2d 919. Can the mere fact......
-
Springer v. State
...the legal concept of negligence." Springer, 779 N.E.2d at 560. In significant part, the Court of Appeals relied on Cichos v. State, 243 Ind. 187, 184 N.E.2d 1 (1962), and Sipp v. State, 514 N.E.2d 330 (Ind.Ct. App.1987), for this In Cichos, the defendant was convicted of reckless homicide a......
-
Johnson v. State
...liquor, the conviction for reckless homicide must be reversed.' (Original emphasis.) 288 N.E.2d at 738, 739. See also, Cichos v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 187, 184 N.E.2d 1. We are of the opinion that the evidence in the case at bar is insufficient to establish actions amounting to a reckless ......
-
Edmond v. State
...abuse of discretion.2 In support of her argument, Edmond relies on Sipp v. State, 514 N.E.2d 330 (Ind.Ct.App.1987), and Cichos v. State, 243 Ind. 187, 184 N.E.2d 1 (1962). However, in Sipp, the jury was not instructed that the State had to prove more than negligence nor was it given a defin......