Dombkowski v. State, 30695
Decision Date | 06 November 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 30695,30695 |
Parties | Craig A. DOMBKOWSKI, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Stevens & Wampler, David H. Feagler, Plymouth, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Kenneth M. Waterman, Deputy, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
This appeal is prosecuted from a conviction and judgment rendered on the verdict of a jury where the appellant was charged with the crime of Sodomy pursuant to Burns' Indiana Statutes, Anno., § 10--4221, (1956 Repl.). The appellant was sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for an indeterminate period of not less than two (2) nor more than fourteen (14) years.
The appellant filed a motion for a new trial in the court below and urged the following grounds:
'1. The verdict of the jury is contrary to law.
2. The verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.
3. The Court erred in overruling the defendant's motion made at the close of all the evidence to instruct the jury to return a verdict for the defendant and to find the defendant not guilty of the offense charged in the affidavit.'
The fourth specification of the motion for a new trial reads as follows:
'(a) The Court erred in receiving in evidence, over the objection of the defendant, the testimony on direct examination of the witness Stanley Greenlee, a witness called on behalf of the State, the specific questions, answers, objections and the rulings of the Court being as follows:
'(b) The Court erred in receiving in evidence, over the objection of the defendant, the testimony on re-direct examination of the witness Rolland Kling Jr., a witness called on behalf of the State, the specific questions, answers, objections and rulings of the Court being as follows:
'MR. CHIPMAN: Q. Where did it take place?
ROLAND KLING, JR. A. About nine o'clock out in front cell.
MR. CHIPMAN: Q. Go ahead.
ROLLAND KLING, JR. A. The same time he smashed the whiskey bottle against the wall. He was telling me how he stabbed the Notre Dame student.
'(c) The Court erred in receiving in evidence, over the objection of the defendant, the testimony on redirect examination of the witness Rolland Kling, Jr., a witness called on behalf of the State, the specific questions, answers, objections and rulings of the Court being as follows:
'MR. CHIPMAN: Q. What was said?
ROLLAND KLING, JR. A. Is everything all right?
ROLLAND KLING, JR. A. Deputy Sheriff Baker said, 'Is everything all right, Ronald' and I was laying on the bed and I said 'yes.'
'(d) The Court erred in receiving in evidence over the objection of the defendant, the testimony on direct examination of the witness Donald Eugene Styles, a witness called on behalf of the State, the specific questions, answers, objections and rulings of the Court being as follows:
'(f) The Court erred in overruling the objections of the defendant to the questions set forth next below, propounded by the Prosecuting Attorney during the cross-examination of the defendant Craig Dombkowski, and in admitting into evidence the answers thereto, the specific questions, answers, objections and rulings of the Court being as follows:
Specifications (e) and (g) have not been dealt with in this opinion for the reason that they were not included in the argument section of appellant's brief, and, therefore, are deemed waived under Supreme Court Rule 2--17, 1964. Said alleged errors are not set out herein.
Specification 4(a) contends that the Court committed error in the rulings on the direct examination of witness Stanley Greenlee, which evidence, together with the objections, is set out supra.
Specification 4(b) urges reversible error by the Trial Court in receiving into evidence the testimony on re-direct examination of the witness Rolland Kling, Jr. as to statements made by the appellant with regard to an alleged stabbing, as set out supra.
Specification 4(c) argues that the Trial Court committed reversible error in receiving into evidence the testimony on redirect examination of the witness Rolland Kling, Jr. as to certain statements made to him by a deputy sheriff, all as set out verbatim, supra.
Specification 4(d) urges reversible error by the Trial Court in that the Court interrogated a witness as to certain testimony regarding a conversation as set out verbatim, supra.
Specification 4(e) alleges reversible error in the Trial Court in permitting the prosecuting attorney on cross-examination to exceed the scope of direct examination and to exceed proper cross-examination concerning prior convictions of appellant and other charges made against appellant as set out verbatim, supra.
Errors 4(a) and 4(c) contend that certain testimony was introduced over objection. It is true that objections were made; however, in each instance, objections were not made at the proper time and with the proper specificity. In assigned errors (b) and (c), the objection was made, in each instance, after the answer was given. Bramlett v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 662, 87 N.E.2d 880 holds that a party must make his objection before the answer is given in order to preserve the error for appeal. See also, 1 Ewbank's Indiana Criminal Law, Evidence, § 379, p. 232....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bruce v. State
...interrogate a witness. However, this should never be done in a manner which would improperly influence the jury. Dombkowski v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 32, 230 N.E.2d 602; Rhodes v. State (1930), 202 Ind. 159 (171 N.E.2d 301), 172 N.E. 176. The purpose of the judge's discretionary power to ex......
-
Tinnin v. State
...A party must make his objection to a question before the answer is given in order to preserve the issue for appeal. Dombkowski v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 32, 230 N.E.2d 602; Beeler v. State, (1952) 230 Ind. 444, 104 N.E.2d 744. Any error that occurred has thus been Defendant next contends th......
-
Capital Improvement Bd. of Managers of Marion County (Convention Center) v. Public Service Commission
...of a hearing judge. Such discretion is even allowed to a certain extent to a trial judge in a criminal prosecution. Dombkowski v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 32, 230 N.E.2d 602. Under the circumstances, we do not see how the Deputy Commissioner could properly have ruled upon the Intervenors' obj......
-
Bonds v. State
...to strike the prior testimony and admonish the jury to disregard it. Tinnin v. State, (1981) Ind., 416 N.E.2d 116; Dombkowski v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 32, 230 N.E.2d 602. There was no error Defendant maintains the trial court erred when it gave final instruction number 13, which read: "You......