Crane v. State, No. 178S13

Docket NºNo. 178S13
Citation269 Ind. 299, 380 N.E.2d 89
Case DateSeptember 22, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 89

380 N.E.2d 89
269 Ind. 299
William Leroy CRANE, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 178S13.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept. 22, 1978.

[269 Ind. 300]

Page 91

Michael K. Deardorff, Kokomo, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PRENTICE, Justice.

Defendant (Appellant) was charged with and convicted of first degree murder, Ind.Code § 35-13-4-1 (Burns 1975). He was sentenced to life imprisonment and presents the following issues for review:

(1) Whether the trial court erred in admitting State's exhibit No. 8, a handgun, into evidence over objection upon grounds that it had been obtained as the result of an illegal arrest.

(2) Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State's exhibits Nos. 11 and 12, Defendant's waiver of rights and statement, over objection upon grounds that they had been obtained as the result of an illegal arrest.

(3) Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress his waiver of rights and statement, which were subsequently admitted at trial.

(4) Whether the trial court erred in admitting into evidence State's exhibits Nos. 2, 3 and 4, photographs of the decedent, over objection upon grounds that they were inflammatory and prejudicial.

(5) Whether the evidence sustains the jury's finding that the defendant was sane at the time that the crime was committed.

ISSUES I & II

Issues I and II may be consolidated since the basis for each alleged error is the legality of the defendant's arrest. The defendant contends that the officers lacked probable cause for his warrantless arrest and that any evidence obtained in consequence thereof should have been excluded.

[269 Ind. 301] The pertinent facts concerning the defendant's arrest were as follows:

At approximately 8:30 on the morning of February 7, 1975, the arresting officers were called to the Steel Inn, a restaurant, to investigate a shooting. Upon arriving, they found Joan Dotterer, the owner, lying dead on the floor. The delivery man, who had found the body, had attempted to contact the defendant, because he knew that he had worked for the decedent and had a key to the restaurant. He told the police that the defendant had always been at the restaurant by the time that he arrived to make his deliveries. On that particular morning, however, the defendant was neither at the restaurant nor at his home. Acting upon this information, the police went directly to the defendant's home, located across the street from the restaurant. Finding no one there, they talked to a few of the defendant's neighbors and then returned to the restaurant for further investigation.

About 9:40 a. m. they returned to the home of one of the defendant's neighbors, Frank Petosky, to ask him a few more questions. During their conversation, they were told that the defendant had stopped by Petosky's house while they were gone and admitted having shot the decedent. After receiving this information, the police went to the defendant's home to question him. When he opened the door, they asked him to step outside, which he did. He was patted down for any concealed weapons and read Miranda type warnings. One of the officers then asked him where the gun was, and he replied that his sister had it in the house. He invited the officers into the house and asked his sister to give them the gun, which she did. The defendant, accompanied by his sister, was then taken to police headquarters. After having been advised of his rights several times and after having signed a waiver thereof, he gave a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Lowery v. State, No. 02S00-8606-CR-591
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 8, 1989
    ...to admit photographic evidence will be reversed only where an abuse of discretion is shown. Boyd, 494 N.E.2d 284; Crane v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 299, 380 N.E.2d 89. The defendant must clearly show the tendency of the photographs to improperly influence the jury before we will disturb the t......
  • Boyd v. State, No. 384
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1986
    ...can be shown that such discretion was abused. Akins v. State (1982), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 232, 236, reh. denied (1982); Crane v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 299, 303, 380 N.E.2d 89, 92. The photographs here showed the multiple injuries on the body of Judy Falkenstein, and showed how the body was loc......
  • Loy v. State, No. 981S236
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 8, 1982
    ...decision to admit photographs into evidence will be reversed only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion. Crane v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 299, 303, 380 N.E.2d 89, 92. Admissibility involves the photograph's relevance, which may be determined by an inquiry as to whether a witness would b......
  • Darnell v. State, No. 581S147
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 25, 1982
    ...inquiry as to whether or not a witness would be permitted to testify as to the objects depicted in the photograph. Crane v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 299, 380 N.E.2d 89; Pierce v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 650, 256 N.E.2d 557. In the instant case, Goebel had testified about several items of stere......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Lowery v. State, No. 02S00-8606-CR-591
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 8, 1989
    ...to admit photographic evidence will be reversed only where an abuse of discretion is shown. Boyd, 494 N.E.2d 284; Crane v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 299, 380 N.E.2d 89. The defendant must clearly show the tendency of the photographs to improperly influence the jury before we will disturb the t......
  • Boyd v. State, No. 384
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1986
    ...can be shown that such discretion was abused. Akins v. State (1982), Ind., 429 N.E.2d 232, 236, reh. denied (1982); Crane v. State (1978), 269 Ind. 299, 303, 380 N.E.2d 89, 92. The photographs here showed the multiple injuries on the body of Judy Falkenstein, and showed how the body was loc......
  • Loy v. State, No. 981S236
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 8, 1982
    ...decision to admit photographs into evidence will be reversed only upon the showing of an abuse of discretion. Crane v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 299, 303, 380 N.E.2d 89, 92. Admissibility involves the photograph's relevance, which may be determined by an inquiry as to whether a witness would b......
  • Darnell v. State, No. 581S147
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 25, 1982
    ...inquiry as to whether or not a witness would be permitted to testify as to the objects depicted in the photograph. Crane v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 299, 380 N.E.2d 89; Pierce v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 650, 256 N.E.2d 557. In the instant case, Goebel had testified about several items of stere......
  • 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