Denson v. State
Decision Date | 22 January 1960 |
Docket Number | No. 29786,29786 |
Parties | John F. DENSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Edward F. New, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Owen S. Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant was charged by affidavit with the crime of assault and battery with intent to commit a murder. He waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty. The trial was by the court without intervention of a jury and resulted in a finding of guilty as charged. He was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than one (1) nor more than ten (10) years, and fined in the sum of one dollar ($1.00). The motion for a new trial which was overruled first assigns as errors that the finding of the court is not sustained by sufficient evidence and is contrary to law.
The evidence in brief shows that a cab driver picked up the appellant and a woman later identified as Roberta Ann Callan, at the Lorraine Hotel about ten to eleven o'clock in the evening of September 4, 1958. They drove to 56th Street and then east on that street almost to Road 37 and stopped. The appellant and the woman were arguing. The cab driver testified that the appellant was strangling the woman and when appellant let loose, blood came from her throat. This occurred about 25 yards west of Road 37. Another witness further testified that Roberta Callan had a deep cut around her throat which was bleeding badly when he saw her at the hospital; that he talked to the appellant and the appellant said among other things:
The appellant contends that the venue was not proved, but witness Delmer Tableman, the record shows, was placed on the witness stand and testified that he was acquainted with the boundaries of Marion County and the location of '25 yards west on 56th Street of Road 37' and that such a place is located in Marion County.
In Buhmeier v. State, 1934, 206 Ind. 645, 190 N.E. 857, 858, substantially the same question as to proof of venue was raised on appeal and this court said:
Moore v. State, 1926, 198 Ind. 547, 153 N.E. 402, rehearing denied 154 N.E. 388; Dunlap v. State, 1932, 205 Ind. 384, 180 N.E. 475, 186 N.E. 764; Christ v. State, 1921, 191 Ind. 56, 131 N.E. 820; Huffman v. State, 1915, 183 Ind. 698, 109 N.E. 401, 748.
The Court takes judicial notice that Marion County is in the State of Indiana. Therefore, in our opinion, the venue was proved and the charge was sustained by the evidence. This Court on appeal will not weight the evidence nor determine the credibility of the witnesses when the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal. Examining the evidence most favorable to the appellee we find that it sustains the finding of the trial court. The trial court did not err in overruling the motion for a new trial. Moss v. State, Ind.1959, 159 N.E.2d 119; Pendleton v. State, Ind.1959, 156 N.E.2d 782.
The appellant next objects to the introduction of certain pictures as exhibits taken by a policeman showing the condition of the throat of Roberta Callan on the night she was taken to the hospital. This evidence was competent and relevant and there was no error on the part of the court in admitting such evidence.
The next contention made by the appellant is that the State introduced an affidavit of Roberta Callan as an exhibit which stated in substance that she was the prosecuting witness; that she did not want to prosecute the defendant nor testify against him; and that she was bedfast due to a heart ailment and unable to attend the trial and she requested the prosecutor to dismiss the cause. The State claims they offered the affidavit in evidence to excuse her absence. The appellant claims that he had the constitutional right to confront every witness face-to-face and to cross-examine such a witness. Article 1, Section 13, Constitution, State of Indiana; Amendment 6, Constitution of the United States.
There can be no question about the appellant's constitutional rights. Every defendant has the right to be confronted by his accusers and witnesses who testify against him and also the right to cross-examine such witness. But the appellant cannot stand idly by, making no objections to the introduction of certain evidence, and thereafter claim error and that he did not waive his right. The record in this case shows that after the affidavit was properly identified, the State offered Exhibit No. 4 (the affidavit) in evidence as follows:
'Mr. New: (Attorney for appellant) No questions.--No objections.
'Witness excused'
The record shows the affidavit was then read in evidence and the court made the following statement: 'To keep the record straight, show State's...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Epps v. State
...the credibility of various witnesses when the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is raised on appeal. Denson v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 324, 163 N.E.2d 749. Appellant argues that this conviction rests upon the testimony alone of an admitted criminal and an irresponsible person, and ......
-
Sotelo v. State
...to describe the same details, regardless of how gruesome, horrible and revolting the picture may be. See also: Denson v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 324, 163 N.E.2d 749. 'The mere fact that evidence in injurious (i.e. prejudicial) to a defendant does not for such reason make it incompetent or in......
-
Ward v. State, 30556
...the witnesses. The issues of fact in such a case must go to the jury and a directed verdict would have been improper. Denson v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 324, 163 N.E.2d 749; Byrd v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 452, 185 N.E.2d We find no reversible error committed by the trial court in this case, a......
-
Jenkins v. State
...be confronted by his accusers and by witnesses who will testify against him and has the right to cross-examine them. Denson v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 324, 163 N.E.2d 749. However, the right of confrontation is not absolute and must occasionally give way to considerations of public policy an......