Conrad v. State, 1273S255

Citation262 Ind. 446,317 N.E.2d 789
Decision Date21 October 1974
Docket NumberNo. 1273S255,1273S255
PartiesWilliam Bert CONRAD, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Gerald E. Surface, Jr., Richmond, Public Defender, Wayne Superior Court #1, James M. Backmeyer, Public Defender, Wayne Superior Court #1, Richmond, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., G. Philip Duckwall, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

This is an appeal by William Bert Conrad, defendant-appellant, from a conviction in the Henry Circuit Court for kidnapping and manslaughter. He was indicted by the Wayne County Grand Jury. He was tried by jury which returned its verdict of guilty on May 9, 1973. Appellant timely filed his motion to correct errors, the overruling of which results in this appeal.

Appellant raises several issues, including the admission of blood type evidence without proper foundation, the admission of testimony relating to certain items removed from appellant's automobile without proper foundation, and lack of jurisdiction. Appellant also objects to the giving of an instruction by the court, and the concomitant refusal to give certain instructions tendered by appellant. Appellant objects to the use at trial of statements allegedly given in violation of his constitutional rights. Finally appellant asserts that his conviction was contrary to law and based upon insufficient evidence.

In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, this Court will not weigh the evidence. Rather, we are constrained to consider the evidence most favorable to the state and the reasonable inferences therefrom. If there is substantial evidence of probative value from which the trier of fact could reasonably infer that appellant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will be affirmed. Blackburn v. State, (1973) Ind., 291 N.E.2d 686.

A companion of appellant, one Phyllis Anderson, testified that she accompanied him to the home of Gilbert Merle Hudelson about 11:00 o'clock, p.m., on the evening of June 15, 1972. Appellant found Hudelson working in his garage and began a conversation with him. The conversation degenerated into an argument. Appellant struck Hudelson with his fist. Appellant then placed Hudelson in the trunk of appellant's automobile. Appellant and Miss Anderson then drove around, finally stopping on State Line Road, when appellant's vehicle overheated. Appellant instructed Miss Anderson to get some water from a nearby farmhouse. When leaving the car, Miss Anderson heard a voice from the area of the trunk saying, 'Let me out of here.' When she returned with the water, she asked appellant why it was so quiet, and he replied that 'The old man won't talk 'cause I just beat his brains out.' Upon restarting his vehicle, appellant and Miss Anderson returned to Richmond. Eventually appellant stopped the car on Woodside Drive and pulled Hudelson from the trunk and dragged him to the edge of the road. They then returned to Miss Anderson's apartment. The victim's body was discovered on Friday, June 16, 1972.

Miss Anderson's testimony was corroborated by the resident of the farmhouse, who gave her water for appellant's automobile; by medical testimony placing the approximate time of death; by testimony as to the blood group of stains on items removed from appellant's trunk; and by the testimony of Anderson's niece, who helped clean out the trunk of appellant's vehicle on Saturday, June 17, 1972. There is an abundance of evidence from which the jury could have determined appellant's guilt of the offenses charged. Therefore, appellant's contention of insufficiency of the evidence is without merit.

Appellant objects to the admission of a blood sample taken from the deceased. Appellant also objects to the admission of a blood sample given by appellant. The basis of these objections is the state's alleged failure to prove an adequate chain of custody. Specifically, appellant asserts that the state failed to negate any possibility of tampering while the samples were in official custody. As we have often stated, 'The mere possibility that evidence might have been tampered with will not make the evidence totally objectionable.' Jones v. State, (1973) Ind., 296 N.E.2d 407; Kolb v. State, (1972) Ind., 282 N.E.2d 541; Rose v. State, (1972) Ind., 281 N.E.2d 486.

Appellant protests that the state failed to prove that the 'instruments used to obtain the blood were sterile, that the blood was properly preserved, and that when the blood samples were tested they were still pure.' As authority for this proposition, appellant relies upon State v. Shelton, (Iowa 1970) 176 N.W.2d 159. In that case the Iowa Supreme Court reversed a conviction for driving under the influence where the defendant's blood sample had not been obtained in compliance with statutory procedure. We agree with appellant that the statutory procedure in Shelton regarding the foundation to be laid prior to the admission of blood samples may be desirable. However, the adoption of such a scheme lies within the province of the legislature and not this Court. Absent such procedure, we note that there is sufficient evidence demonstrating that the purity of the sample was maintained. The samples were placed in clean glass vials containing an anti-coagulant substance. The vials were then sealed, initialed, and maintained in police custody. Appellant's objection to the admission of evidence based upon these samples is without merit.

Appellant also raises the chain of custody argument with regard to the admission of testimony relating to certain items taken from the trunk of appellant's auto. Again, we find sufficient evidence to account for the whereabouts of state's exhibits 22, 23, and 27 through 34. Moreover, appellant seeks to charge the state with failure to prove chain of custody from the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
38 cases
  • State v. Jones, 720
    • United States
    • Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
    • 7 Abril 1982
    ...and extension of the acts into Oklahoma does not defeat Arkansas jurisdiction." Id. 553 S.W.2d at 33. Indiana (Conrad v. State, 262 Ind. 446, 317 N.E.2d 789, 1974): Defendant was tried in Indiana for a murder in which the fatal blows were inflicted in Ohio. The court instructed that the jur......
  • State v. Grissom
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • 10 Noviembre 1992
    ...an essential element of the crime of first degree murder, occurred within Colorado." 695 P.2d at 751-52. In Conrad v. State, 262 Ind. 446, 317 N.E.2d 789 (1974), the victim was assaulted and kidnapped in Indiana, but the blows from which he died were delivered in Ohio at a place on State Li......
  • State v. Ross
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • 26 Julio 1994
    ...the sixth amendment of the United States Constitution." Lane v. State, 388 So.2d 1022, 1028 (Fla.1980); 7 see also Conrad v. State, 262 Ind. 446, 450, 317 N.E.2d 789 (1974); State v. Harrington, 128 Vt. 242, 250, 260 A.2d 692 (1969). Connecticut does not lack the authority to make it a capi......
  • Rios v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 24 Febrero 1987
    ...317 (1953); United States v. Baish, 460 A.2d 38 (D.C.App.1983); Adair v. United States, 391 A.2d 288 (D.C.App.1978); Conrad v. State, 262 Ind. 446, 317 N.E.2d 789 (1974); Commonwealth v. Lanoue, 326 Mass. 559, 95 N.E.2d 925 (1950); State v. Jones, 51 Md.App. 321, 443 A.2d 967 (1982); Bowen ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Criminal Justice is Local: Why States Disregard Universal Jurisdiction for Human Rights Abuses.
    • United States
    • Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law Vol. 55 No. 2, March 2022
    • 1 Marzo 2022
    ..."[t]he force was initiated in Arkansas, and extension of the acts into Oklahoma does not defeat Arkansas jurisdiction."); Conrad v. State, 262 Ind. 446 (1974) (prior assault and abduction provided "an adequate jurisdictional base" for appellant's conviction of subsequent (158.) Justice Card......

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