Duvose v. State, s. 1070S244
| Decision Date | 03 December 1971 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 1070S244,1070S245,s. 1070S244 |
| Citation | 257 Ind. 450,275 N.E.2d 536 |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jessie James DUVOSE and Clinton Boga, Jr., Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (two cases). |
Charles W. Vincent, Terre Haute, for appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Hasset, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The appellants were charged with the crimes of kidnapping and rape in two separate counts arising out of the same incident. The two causes were tried simultaneously before a jury resulting in verdicts of guilty on each count as to each of the appellants. The State of Indiana moved to consolidate the cases for purposes of argument and decision in this court which motion was granted. Appellants contend they were denied a fair trial by reason of the State's improper introduction into evidence of extraneous matter which was prejudicial to the defendants.
The following testimony appears in the record during the direct examination of state's witness Tryon:
The general rule in Indiana is that evidence of separate and distinct crimes is inadmissible except to show intent, motive, identification or a common scheme or plan. Hennings v. State (1971), Ind., 267 N.E.2d 172,24 Ind.Dec. 674.
There was no attempt on the part of the state in this case to bring the evidence of the rapes alleged to have occurred in Pennsylvania within the above exceptions to the rule. It is difficult to see how such a statement made by the officer could be anything but prejudicial to the appellants. There is no showing of any relevance of the alleged acts in Pennsylvania to any point in issue to the case at bar. In White v. State (1971), Ind., 272 N.E.2d 312, 26 Ind.Dec. 568, this Court stated:
'* * * the burden is upon * * * (the party claiming error) to show that he was harmed; but this is done when it is made, by all the circumstances, to appear that the error placed him in a position of grave peril to which he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bishop v. State
...1339, 1346 (Ind.1982) (citing Montgomery v. State, 274 Ind. 544, 548, 412 N.E.2d 793, 795 (1980), reh'g denied; Duvose v. State, 257 Ind. 450, 451, 275 N.E.2d 536, 537 (1971) ). Both “the timing and similarity of the incidents are factors in the larger inquiry into whether the incidents wer......
-
Lehiy v. State
...412 N.E.2d at 796. It placed the defendant in a position of grave peril to which he should not have been subjected. Duvose v. State (1971), 257 Ind. 450, 275 N.E.2d 536, 537. The conviction must therefore be reversed and the case returned to the trial court for a new trial. A new trial is p......
-
Malone v. State
...as to be logically relevant to one of the particular excepted purposes. Montgomery v. State, 412 N.E.2d at 795; Duvose v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 450, 451, 275 N.E.2d 536, 537. For instance, evidence of other criminal activity is commonly allowed to prove the identification of an accused acc......
-
Miller v. State
...of consensual sexual intercourse between herself and Defendant that occurred six weeks prior to the offense charged); Duvose v. State, (1971) 257 Ind. 450, 275 N.E.2d 536 (rape and kidnapping convictions reversed where no showing of relevance of police officer's statement that the defendant......