Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 04 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30858,30858 |
| Citation | 249 Ind. 426,231 N.E.2d 230,12 Ind.Dec. 152 |
| Parties | Ray William DAVIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rice & VanStone, Evansville, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., John F. Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
The appellant herein is appealing from a conviction in the Circuit Court of Vanderburgh County, wherein he was charged with the offense of theft of property of less than One Hundred ($100) Dollars in value. (Penalties: Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--3039 Supp. 1967).
Prosecution was commenced on the basis of an affidavit charging appellant with the above stated crime, to-wit: knowingly, unlawfully and feloniously obtained control over stolen property knowing that said property had been stolen by person or persons unknown to him; used, concealed and abandoned the property knowing such use, concealment and abandonment probably would permanently deprive the owner of such use and benefit of said property. Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--3030 (Supp.1967). Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and thereafter trial was had by jury. The trial resulted in the jury returning a verdict of guilty of the offense charged, and upon this verdict the court fined appellant Five Hundred ($500) Dollars and costs and sentenced him to one (s) year on the Indiana State Farm.
The error assigned and relied upon by the appellant is the overruling of his motion for a new trial. Appellant expressly waives any alleged error on the basis that the verdict of the jury was contrary to law or was not sustained by sufficient evidence.
Appellant alleges four (4) additional grounds of error in his motion for new trial, however these are combined for purposes of argument. In essence he complains that irregularity in the proceedings of the jury and misconduct of the jury have tended to prevent the defendant from having a fair trial.
The record reveals that the following article concerning the appellant was printed in a local newspaper, The Evansville Press, on the evening of May 10, 1965 (the first day of trial):
'SUSPENDED FIREMAN TRIED IN THEFT CASE
Suspended city fireman Ray W. Davis went on trial before a Circuit Court jury today as an outgrowth of what authorities have called a stolen property ring.
The 44-year-old veteran of 14 years on the Fire Department force is being tried on the charge of possession and sale of a stolen typewriter.
He is charged in another case along with his wife, Frances, 37, with possession of property stolen from a beauty shop and in a third case he is accused with Joseph R. Farley, 37, of possession and sale of stolen barbed wire.
FARLEY, an ex-convict, was recently tried and convicted in Warrick County Circuit Court of an Evansville burglary and sentenced to six months on the Indiana State Farm.
In the case being tried today Davis is accused of selling the typewriter to another fireman. The typewriter is alleged to have been among $1600 worth of office machines stolen in a May 14 burglary of the Sun Oil Company, 506 S. Green River Road.
DAVIS WAS suspended from the Fire Department by Chief Fred Hougland immediately following his arrest. He has been free on $2000 bond.
DAVIS and his wife are jointly charged with possession of four hair dryers, cosmetics and other beauty supplies taken from the DeVry School of Beauty Culture and Beauty Shop, 26--28 1/2 Main, last October and selling the items to the Wright Farm and Supply Company of Rockport.
In the case against Davis and Farley, the two men are charged with selling 40 rolls of barbed wire taken from the Tractor Supply Company, 1011 Vine. The affidavit alleges the wire was worth $347 and was sold for $240 by the two.'
On the following morning, May 11, 1965, by request of appellant the jurors were separately questioned, and it was revealed that one of the jurors, Mary Bartley, had read the above article while the jury was separated. Appellant had previously moved for a mistrial but now withdrew the motion stating that the jury generally had followed the court's instructions and the one juror was an innocent party. The court then proceeded to admonish the entire jury that they were to pay no attention to any newspaper articles or any other source of information except that which comes from the witness stand; nor were such to be considered in its deliberations and judgment.
Appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. State, 184S15
...their own verdict, which has never been permitted in this State. Wilson v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 585, 255 N.E.2d 817; Davis v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 426, 231 N.E.2d 230; see also Hardiman v. State, (1978) 176 Ind. 557, 377 N.E.2d 1384. Accord McDonald v. Pless, (1915) 238 U.S. 264, 35 S.C......
-
DeWeese v. State
...667, 52 N.E. 403. We would not be justified in overturning the verdict of the jury on such an affidavit alone. Davis v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 426, 231 N.E.2d 230, 12 Ind.Dec. 152. Appellant next argues the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence in that there is no evidence that a......
-
Hardiman v. State
...solely on hearsay can be used to attack the verdict. See Wilson v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 585, 255 N.E.2d 817, and Davis v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 426, 231 N.E.2d 230. Since neither the affidavit of the juror nor that of the attorney was capable of being considered, and since the bailiff's ......