Crosson v. State, No. 777S536

Docket NºNo. 777S536
Citation268 Ind. 511, 376 N.E.2d 1136
Case DateJune 16, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1136

376 N.E.2d 1136
268 Ind. 511
Craig R. CROSSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 777S536.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 16, 1978.

[268 Ind. 512]

Page 1138

Michael E. Boonstra, Huntington, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Jack R. O'Neill, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

At the conclusion of a jury trial in the Huntington Circuit Court on February 8, 1977, Appellant Crosson was found guilty of inflicting injury in the commission of a robbery. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. The crime in question is the robbery

Page 1139

of a gas station in Huntington County in August of 1976, by two men. An employee of the station was shot and wounded in the course of this incident. Appellant Crosson was apprehended when police located a pickup truck which had been identified as having been used by the suspects. At the time of his arrest, appellant directed the police to the money which had been taken from the gas station, and to the guns which had been used at the time of the robbery.

Five errors are alleged in this appeal: (1) that the trial court should not have granted the state's Motion in Limine, which prohibited the defense from commenting about a plea bargain arrangement of one Morris Pierson; (2) that certain photographs were improperly introduced into evidence at trial insofar as they had not been offered to the appellant for inspection at the time of a pre-trial conference; (3) that the gun alleged to have been used in the robbery should not have been admitted into evidence, in that there was neither an adequate foundation nor a proper chain of custody established with respect to it; (4) that certain bullets were improperly admitted into evidence, insofar as they were not shown to be relevant nor was a proper chain of custody established as to them, and; (5) that an ammunition disposition record was improperly admitted into evidence, because such record was neither the best evidence nor within the exception to the hearsay rule for business records. Two other errors which have been asserted in appellant's brief are waived. Appellant asserts that his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the state's case was improperly overruled. However, this assertion is not presented and argued in the argument section of appellant's brief, and is thereby waived. Jenkins v. State, (1975) 263 [268 Ind. 514] Ind. 589, 335 N.E.2d 215; Ind.R.Ap.P. 8.3(A)(7). Similarly, appellant asserts that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction in this case. As this assertion has not been argued in the argument section of appellant's brief, it is likewise waived. Id.

I.

The state's Motion in Limine in this case asked the trial court to prohibit the defense from commenting upon the plea bargain, plea agreement, penalty, or prospective penalty of one Morris Pierson, unless Pierson was called by the state. This motion was granted by the trial court. Pierson never did testify at trial. On appeal, appellant argues that his right of confrontation under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States was violated in this instance. It is also argued that the Motion in Limine in this case was an improper one insofar as it did not allege that the plea agreement would be prejudicial to the state.

We do not see how appellant's right of confrontation could have been violated here. There was nothing to prevent appellant from calling Pierson as a witness, if there was something beneficial to his case which Pierson might have testified to. If the state had in fact called Pierson to testify against appellant, and Pierson's credibility as against appellant's would have been in issue, the Motion in Limine would not have been operable under its own terms. However, Pierson did not testify in this case, either for the state or for the appellant. Appellant's argument here is basically a series of speculative statements about what Pierson either could have or would have testified to in favor of appellant's case. Appellant then cites this court to the rule that a jury has a right to know any facts which tend to show a witness' bias, prejudice, or hostility in passing on that witness' credibility. Again, this rule has no applicability to this case since Pierson was not in fact a witness.

Appellant next argues that the state's Motion in Limine [268 Ind. 515] was improper because it did not allege that there was anything prejudicial about the excluded references to Pierson's case. It is true that motions in limine are used before trial as protective orders against prejudicial...

To continue reading

Request your trial
42 practice notes
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...this issue by allegedly raising the present objections in a pretrial motion in limine. However, as we noted in Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 515, 376 N.E.2d 1136, "It is true that motions in limine are used before trial as protective order against prejudicial questions and statemen......
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...only provide reasonable assurance that the exhibit has passed through various hands in an undisturbed condition. Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 516-17, 376 N.E.2d 1136, 1140; Gaddis v. State, Of course, the test becomes more stringent where the articles in question are fungible arti......
  • State v. Bouras, No. 1-380A57
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 29, 1981
    ...of evidence to the jury until the court has the opportunity to rule on its admissibility in the trial context. Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 376 N.E.2d 1136. We find the State has failed to preserve the question of prior accidents for our review since the trial court was not provid......
  • Baker v. State, No. 680S169
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 1, 1981
    ...to the jury Page 102 until the trial court has ruled upon its admissibility in the context of the trial itself. Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 376 N.E.2d 1136; Lagenour v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 441, 376 N.E.2d Defendant was not prevented by the motion in limine from making any refe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
42 cases
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...this issue by allegedly raising the present objections in a pretrial motion in limine. However, as we noted in Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 515, 376 N.E.2d 1136, "It is true that motions in limine are used before trial as protective order against prejudicial questions and statemen......
  • Cobb v. State, No. 778S142
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 7, 1980
    ...only provide reasonable assurance that the exhibit has passed through various hands in an undisturbed condition. Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 516-17, 376 N.E.2d 1136, 1140; Gaddis v. State, Of course, the test becomes more stringent where the articles in question are fungible arti......
  • State v. Bouras, No. 1-380A57
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • July 29, 1981
    ...of evidence to the jury until the court has the opportunity to rule on its admissibility in the trial context. Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 376 N.E.2d 1136. We find the State has failed to preserve the question of prior accidents for our review since the trial court was not provid......
  • Baker v. State, No. 680S169
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 1, 1981
    ...to the jury Page 102 until the trial court has ruled upon its admissibility in the context of the trial itself. Crosson v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 511, 376 N.E.2d 1136; Lagenour v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 441, 376 N.E.2d Defendant was not prevented by the motion in limine from making any refe......
  • 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