Crooks v. State, 869S185
| Decision Date | 03 March 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 869S185,869S185 |
| Citation | 267 N.E.2d 52,256 Ind. 72 |
| Parties | William Lee CROOKS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Lawrence H. Robbins, Walter C. Dietzen, Anderson, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Mark Peden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a conviction in the Madison Circuit Court. Appellant was charged by a four count indictment which counts may be summarized as follows:
Count One--Involuntary manslaughter; Count Two--Reckless homicide; Count Three--Causing the death of another while driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor; Count Four--Driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and trial was had by jury. The jury rendered its verdict in writing as follows:
'We, the jury, find the defendant guilty of driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor and that he shall be imprisoned an indeterminate period of not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years.'
Prior to sentencing the appellant petitioned the court to render judgment on the verdict in conformity with Count Four of the indictment. Count Four, driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, charged a misdemeanor, the penalty for which is set forth below. The State responded to the appellant's petition, contending that the verdict of the jury was on Count Three of the indictment, and that the words 'causing the death of another' were inadvertently omitted in the jury's written verdict. The State's contention was supported by the sentence imposed in the jury verdict, that sentence being in conformity with the felony charged in Count Three. The trial court entered judgment as follows:
Appellant brings this appeal alleging three allegations of error, only one of which need be dealt with here.
At trial the court gave an instruction which related the optional punishments provided for conviction for each of the four counts in the indictment. This instruction as it relates to Count Three, causing the death of another while driving under the influence, reads in part:
* * *'
The instruction as it relates to Count Four, driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, reads in part:
'(2) In all cases except those covered by subparagraph (1) above, any person who drives a vehicle upon any highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or narcotic or other habit-forming drugs shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon first conviction shall be imprisoned for not less than five (5) days nor more than six (6) months, or punished by a fine of not less than twenty-five dollars ($25.00) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by both such fine and imprisonment.'
The instruction purports to and does set forth the appropriate punishments for convictions under either Count Three or Count Four, as found in I.C.1971, 9--4--1--54, being Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. § 47--2001(b).
Appellant alleges that the verdict was illegal, defective, ambiguous, and void, and contrary to law, and, therefore, the trial court erred in pronouncing judgment and sentencing. The essence of appellant's argument is that the jury had assessed a penalty for a felony, when in fact the verdict of the jury found the appellant guilty of only a misdemeanor under Count Four, driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
In reply, the appellee, the State, urges that the verdict of the jury finds the appellant guilty as charged in Count Three, causing the death of another, while driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The State contends that the printed verdict forms supplied to the jury by the court, inadvertently omitted the words 'causing death to another'. The appellee urges the assessment of a punishment of one to five years imprisonment is evidence that the jury found that the appellant was guilty as charged in Count Three.
We cannot adhere to the arguments of the appellee and must agree with the appellant for the following reasons: Firstly, the verdict was given in writing and was unequivocal regarding the finding of the jury without any mention of the defendant having 'caused the death of another', an element absolutely essential to a finding of guilty as charged in Count Three.
Secondly, even assuming that the verdict is ambiguous, we cannot construe the verdict as the appellee urge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jefferson v. State
...somewhat difficult to ascertain the respective role of each. As a general rule, juries decided the sentences for misdemeanors (Crooks v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 72, 267 N.W.2d 52; Shewmaker v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 49, 138 N.E.2d 290) and for murder and treason (see Beasley v. State (1977),......
-
Kelsie v. State
...since the sentences imposed were greater than the minimum and, obviously, the defendants may have been prejudiced. Crooks v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 72, 267 N.E.2d 52; West v. State (1950), 228 Ind. 431, 92 N.E.2d 852; Limeberry v. State (1945), 223 Ind. 622, 63 N.E.2d 697. In Lane v. Hobbs ......
-
Fultz v. State
...corrected by the jury, but the jury had already been discharged. The issue is not analogous to the one before us. In Crooks v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 72, 267 N.E.2d 52, the appellant had been charged with (1) causing a death while driving under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, and (2......
-
Indiana Alcoholic Beverage Commission v. Lamb
... ... See Dept. of Financial Inst. v. State Bank of Lizton (1969), Ind., 252 N.E.2d 248, 19 Ind.Dec. 296 ... In the ... ...