Coakley v. State
| Decision Date | 06 June 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 172A35,172A35 |
| Parties | Anthony Earl COAKLEY, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Roy S. Dale, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., A. Frank Gleaves, III, Indianapolis, for appellee.
Anthony Earl Coakley was charged with the crime of rape. After he waived trial by jury, the trial court found him guilty of the charge and sentenced him to the Indiana State Reformatory for not less than two nor more than twenty-one years. This appeal by Defendant Coakley urges the following errors:
1. Whether an exchange between the prosecutor and one of the defense witnesses constituted a violation of the hearsay doctrine.
2. Whether the Defendant was prejudiced by remarks of the prosecuting attorney made to the trial court in his summation.
We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court in the opinion that follows:
Near midnight on the 10th day of June, 1970, the seventeen year old prosecutrix was sitting with her girl friend and two male companions in an automobile. They were parked in an empty parking lot of a vacant service station which was located between Azar's drive-in restaurant and a veterinarian clinic in Fort Wayne, Indiana. A 1970 Grand Prix automobile pulled in behind them. It had three male Negro occupants: Leroy McClendon, Walter Lee and Anthony Earl Coakley. The Defendant Coakley, twenty-eight years old, got out of the car and walked around the vacant service station out of sight. Fifteen minutes later, the prosecutrix left her three companions to use the restroom in the veterinarian clinic where she was employed. She had a key to the locked door. Leaving the clinic, she was grabbed by a Negro male and dragged into the tall grass and raped. Twenty minutes after she had left the automobile, her concerned companions came searching for her. They saw her running toward them crying and hysterical. Following her at a very short distance was the Negro male who drew a pistol from his pocket. He warned them to stay away or he would blow their guts out, and then he turned and ran.
The prosecutrix' two male companions identified the Defendant Anthony Earl Coakley from police mug shots, a line-up and in court as the male Negro who came walking slowly around the corner of the building, drew a pistol and threatened them before he turned and ran. The prosecutrix positively identified the Defendant Coakley in court as the man who raped her. There is no question presented here as to the sufficiency of the evidence. It is overwhelming.
Defendant Coakley's first contention of error is: 'Whether the conversation and statement of a third party not made in the presence of the Defendant and not part of the res gestae is admissible to elicit evidence against the Defendant?' The exchange occurred when the prosecutor was questioning Walter Lee, a defense witness. The question asked Lee was:
Our Supreme Court defined hearsay in Trustees of Indiana University v. Williams (1969), 252 Ind. 624, 631, 251 N.E.2d 439, 443:
'Hearsay evidence has been defined as testimony by a witness in a judicial proceeding relative to an extrajudicial declaration by another and which is offered for the purpose of proving the facts asserted by the declarant. . . . For testimony to be inadmissible as hearsay, it is necessary that the extrajudicial declaration be offered to prove the 'facts asserted by the declarant."
The prosecutor asked only if Lee had heard the statement uttered by McClendon. The prosecutor did not ask the witness whether or not it was true that the Defendant came back a second time. Prior testimony had established that Lee was present when the above conversation referred to between the prosecutor and McClendon took place. Whether he heard the statement was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gold Bond Bldg. Products Division Nat. Gypsum Co., Shoals Plant v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Sec. Division
...(1969), 252 Ind. 624, 251 N.E.2d 439, 443. See also, Blue v. Brooks (1973), Ind., 303 N.E.2d 269, 273; Coakley v. State (3d Dist. 1972), 152 Ind.App. 280, 282--3, 283 N.E.2d 392, 393--394. The federal mediator's opinion, first stated by him to Company representatives during the bargaining s......
-
Moore v. State
...final determination, he must be deemed to have waived all questions arising out of such alleged misconduct.' Also see Coakley v. State (1972), Ind.App., 283 N.E.2d 392; Harrison v. State (1972), Ind. 281 N.E.2d 98 and Langley v. State (1971), Ind., 267 N.E.2d Any question of error was waive......
-
Burgett v. State
...262 N.E.2d 515; Rexroat v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 688, 201 N.E.2d 558; Hauk v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 92; Coakley v. State (1972), Ind.App., 283 N.E.2d 392. While the Prosecutor's reference to the stricken prior contradictory statements may have had some prejudicial effect, the ......
-
Hall v. State
...may have been committed by the trial court is waived on appeal. Hartwell v. State (1974), Ind.App.,321 N.E.2d 228; Coakley v. State (1972), 152 Ind.App. 280, 283 N.E.2d 392. A non-expert witness may give testimony as to whether a defendant was intoxicated. New v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 307,......