Daniels v. State, No. 879S215

Docket NºNo. 879S215
Citation408 N.E.2d 1244, 274 Ind. 29
Case DateAugust 27, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1244

408 N.E.2d 1244
274 Ind. 29
Leonard R. DANIELS, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 879S215.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Aug. 27, 1980.

[274 Ind. 30]

Page 1245

Terry E. Johnston, Valparaiso, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Carmen L. Quintana, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, Leonard R. Daniels, was convicted by a jury of rape, a class B felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1 (Burns 1979 Repl.); and confinement, a class D Felony, Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3 (Burns 1979 Repl.). He was sentenced to consecutive terms of twenty and four years respectively and now appeals raising the following issues:

1. Whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of defendant's prior sex conviction and in giving a certain instruction pertaining to this conviction;

2. Whether the trial court erred in refusing to give defendant's tendered instruction No. 5;

3. Whether the method of selecting the jury panel was improper and unconstitutional; and

4. Whether the trial court erred in entering judgment on both convictions.

[274 Ind. 31] A summary of the facts from the record most favorable to the state shows that the alleged incident occurred on July 27, 1979, when the victim and her boyfriend were hitchhiking from Michigan to Colorado. Defendant stopped and picked them up at the intersection of I-94 and Indiana 51. Defendant told the victim's friend that he might be able to get him a job driving a U-Haul truck to Colorado. The three stopped at several stores in Lake Station, Indiana, ostensibly for the purpose of telephoning defendant's brother about this job. Finally, defendant dropped the victim's boyfriend off at one store and took the victim to what he referred to as his brother's house to obtain a credit card to purchase gasoline.

After some time, defendant took the victim to get something to eat and later took her to two bars. When the second bar closed, defendant drove the victim to an isolated spot on a country road and forced her to have intercourse. He then drove at random for some time and later stopped and forced her to perform fellatio. The victim screamed and cried and defendant finally let her out of the car because he said he was sick of her screaming. The victim ran to a nearby house and called for help.

Testimony at trial showed that none of defendant's brothers worked for the U-Haul company and that the house to which defendant took the victim was not his brother's house but was the former residence of his ex-wife's parents. Defendant took the stand in his own defense and stated that he never had sexual relations with the victim. He testified that after they left the second bar he sat in the car and talked with her and drove around a little in order to get her sobered up before he took her back to her boyfriend.

Page 1246

I.

Defendant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting a certified copy of the judgment showing his prior conviction of the crime of rape and in giving to the jury an instruction regarding this conviction. We are first constrained to note that while evidence of prior crimes committed by an accused is generally inadmissible, there are exceptions to this rule recognized by Indiana courts. Evidence of prior crimes is admissible if it is relevant to some issue in the case, such as intent, [274 Ind. 32] motive, knowledge, plan, identity, or credibility. Lawrence v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 306, 286 N.E.2d 830; Kerlin v. State, (1970) 255 Ind. 420, 265 N.E.2d 22. In trials for sex offenses, evidence of prior convictions for similar offenses has also been admitted as tending to show a depraved sexual instinct when sodomy or incest is charged. Cobbs v. State, (1975) 264 Ind. 60, 338 N.E.2d 632; Austin v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 529, 319 N.E.2d 130.

It is well settled that prior criminal convictions of those crimes which would have rendered a witness incompetent (treason, murder, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, kidnapping, forgery and wilful and corrupt perjury) along with those involving dishonesty or false statements, are admissible to impeach a witness's credibility. Beasley v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 396, 370 N.E.2d 360; Ashton v. Anderson, (1972) 258 Ind. 51, 279 N.E.2d 210. In the instant case, defendant's prior conviction for rape was properly admitted as evidence impeaching his credibility.

The copy of defendant's prior rape conviction was presented to the jury without any comment, but the trial court gave an instruction limiting the jury's use of this conviction as follows:

"There has been evidence introduced that the defendant, Leonard Daniels, has been convicted of the crime of rape and sentenced thereon. The defendant's conviction may be considered in determining his credibility and whether or not the defendant has a depraved sexual instinct. It should not be considered as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 practice notes
  • People v. Vaughn, Docket No. 97279
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • August 31, 1994
    ...of the victim for half an hour, went beyond that necessarily inherent in rape and supported the kidnapping conviction); Daniels v. State, 274 Ind. 29, 408 N.E.2d 1244 (1980) (a separate kidnapping conviction was proper where the defendant drove the rape victim around back roads without her ......
  • Fleenor v. State, No. 1184
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 13, 1987
    ...the case. Porter v. State (1979) Ind. , 391 N.E.2d 801; Ferrier v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 117, 361 N.E.2d 150." Daniels v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 29, 408 N.E.2d 1244, Instruction No. 4 is set forth here: Page 87 "Since this is a criminal case the Constitution of the State of Indiana makes y......
  • Orr v. State, No. 2-283A56
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 27, 1984
    ...is adequately covered by other instructions adequately given. Short v. State, (1982) Ind., 443 N.E.2d 298; Daniels v. State, (1980) 274 Ind. 29, 408 N.E.2d 1244. The substance of defendant's tendered instruction Number 5 was adequately covered by the trial court's Preliminary Instruction Nu......
  • Highler v. State, No. 02A03-0505-CR-203.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 15, 2005
    ...there is no requirement that any particular class be represented on every jury. Wilder, 813 N.E.2d at 791 (citing Daniels v. State, 274 Ind. 29, 34-35, 408 N.E.2d 1244, 1247 (1980)). Instead, the main requirement is that the jury selection not be arbitrary. Wilder, 813 N.E.2d at The burden ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
47 cases
  • People v. Vaughn, Docket No. 97279
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • August 31, 1994
    ...of the victim for half an hour, went beyond that necessarily inherent in rape and supported the kidnapping conviction); Daniels v. State, 274 Ind. 29, 408 N.E.2d 1244 (1980) (a separate kidnapping conviction was proper where the defendant drove the rape victim around back roads without her ......
  • Fleenor v. State, No. 1184
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 13, 1987
    ...the case. Porter v. State (1979) Ind. , 391 N.E.2d 801; Ferrier v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 117, 361 N.E.2d 150." Daniels v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 29, 408 N.E.2d 1244, Instruction No. 4 is set forth here: Page 87 "Since this is a criminal case the Constitution of the State of Indiana makes y......
  • Orr v. State, No. 2-283A56
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 27, 1984
    ...is adequately covered by other instructions adequately given. Short v. State, (1982) Ind., 443 N.E.2d 298; Daniels v. State, (1980) 274 Ind. 29, 408 N.E.2d 1244. The substance of defendant's tendered instruction Number 5 was adequately covered by the trial court's Preliminary Instruction Nu......
  • Highler v. State, No. 02A03-0505-CR-203.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • September 15, 2005
    ...there is no requirement that any particular class be represented on every jury. Wilder, 813 N.E.2d at 791 (citing Daniels v. State, 274 Ind. 29, 34-35, 408 N.E.2d 1244, 1247 (1980)). Instead, the main requirement is that the jury selection not be arbitrary. Wilder, 813 N.E.2d at The burden ......
  • 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