Davis v. State
Decision Date | 09 August 1971 |
Docket Number | No. 570S116,570S116 |
Citation | 271 N.E.2d 893,257 Ind. 46 |
Parties | Thomas DIVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Bruce E. Bloom, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Darrel K. Diamond, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was charged with the crime of first degree murder and pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity and also entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree. Judgment was entered thereon and the appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison.
On February 17, 1969, appellant went to the home of one Otis Humphries in Fort Wayne, Indiana. The two men argued over the vandalizing of a car. During the argument the appellant pulled a pistol from his pocked and shot Otis Humphries. The shooting was witnessed by Miss Frances Sewell, who testified that she saw the appellant shoot the deceased victim.
Appellant first contends that prejudicial error occurred as a result of the testimony of Police Officer O'Leary, who investigated the shooting. Officer O'Leary testified in rebuttal, as to statements made by the appellant about the shooting, after the appellant had taken the stand in his defense.
In the course of direct and cross-examination of the appellant, he testified that he could not remember much of the events of the evening of the shooting. Specifically, the appellant gave the following responses to questions asked by the appellant's counsel on his direct examination.
house?
house that day?
On cross-examination the appellant gave the following responses to questions asked by the prosecuting attorney.
'
apartment.
The appellant further testified that the witness, Miss Sewell told him that he had killed or shot Otis Humphries. He also stated that he remembered the squad car coming and getting into in and being taken to the police station, but remembered no conversation in the squad car with any policeman.
On rebuttal, the state put Police Detective Sergeant John O'Leary on the stand to rebut the testimony of the appellant regarding the allegation that he could remember nothing of the events of the evening or the shooting. Officer O'Leary testified that he read the appellant's constitutional rights to him from a standard card. After reading the constitutional rights to the appellant officer O'Leary testified that the appellant '* * * said that he would be willing to talk, but that he would also like to notify his attorney.' Officer O'Leary, nevertheless, questioned the appellant. On direct examination officer O'Leary gave the following testimony in part.
'Q. Now, Sgt. O'Leary, would you tell the Court and the jury, if you will, what was said by you and what you said by the defendant, as you started to do?
'A. I asked Mr. Davis if he could tell me anything of the shooting in the house at 2130 South Lafayette. And, his reply was, 'Yes, I shot him.'
automobile. I asked him at this time, is this the reason that you're over here is because of the feud. He said, 'No, the feud is over with."
The above testimony was admitted into evidence over the objection of the appellant. It was the appellant's contention that the testimony admitted into evidence violated the standards of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. The court reconsidered its ruling and struck out the testimony of officer O'Leary and instructed the jury to disregard his testimony. The appellant contends, nevertheless, that prejudicial error occurred entitling him to a new trial. With this we do not agree. In the first place, it is ordinarily sufficient in law for the court to instruct the jury to disregard inadmissible evidence which it has heard. Ward v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 374, 205 N.E.2d 148. Finally, in our opinion in light of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Harris v. New York (1971), 401 U.S. 222, 91...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Stroud v. State
... ... Washington v. State, handed down August 9, 1971, Ind., 271 N.E.2d 888; Davis v. State (1971), handed down August ... Page 846 ... 9, 1971, Ind., 271 N.E.2d 893; Grimm v. State (1970), Ind., 258 N.E.2d 407; Sharp v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 593; Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 558; and Langley v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 29, 232 N.E.2d 611. A conviction ... ...
-
State v. Kidd
...40 Ill.App.3d 1003, 353 N.E.2d 244, 247 (1976); People v. Hearn, 34 Ill.App.3d 919, 341 N.E.2d 129, 130 (1976); Davis v. State, 257 Ind. 46, 271 N.E.2d 893, 895 (1971). Compare Walls v. State, 279 So.2d 95, 96 People v. Taylor, 8 Cal.3d 174, 104 Cal.Rptr. 350, 501 P.2d 918 (1972), cert. den......
-
Oregon v. Hass 8212 1452
...People v. Moore, 54 Ill.2d 33, 294 N.E.2d 297, cert. denied, 412 U.S. 943, 93 S.Ct. 2787, 37 L.Ed.2d 404 (1973); Davis v. State, 257 Ind. 46, 271 N.E.2d 893 (1971); Sabatini v. State, 14 Md.App. 431, 287 A.2d 511 (1972); Commonwealth v. Harris, 364 Mass. 236, 303 N.E.2d 115 (1973); State v.......
-
Hart v. State
...therefrom which support the verdict of the trial court or jury. Washington v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 888; Davis v. State (1971), Ind., 271 N.E.2d 893; Grimm v. State (1970), Ind., 258 N.E.2d 407; Sharp v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 593; Smith v. State (1970), Ind., 260 N.E.2d 55......