Edwards v. State, 30867
| Decision Date | 13 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 30867,30867 |
| Citation | 234 N.E.2d 845,250 Ind. 19 |
| Parties | George Alfred EDWARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Francis E. Knowles, Mt. Vernon, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Jack F. Davis (on rehearing), Murray West, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Appellee, State of Indiana, has filed a petition for rehearing contending that the juvenile court did conduct a proper hearing to determine if jurisdiction over appellant in the juvenile court should have been waived to the criminal court and that the juvenile court did make a proper waiver. Our original opinion stated that
'There is no indication in the record before us that the Posey Circuit Court, sitting in its capacity as a juvenile court, acquired and waived jurisdiction over the appellant pursuant to the provisions of either Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--3207 (Supp. 1967) or § 9--3213 (1956).'
In the case of juveniles, it is incumbent upon the State to show a proper waiver, and where the record does not indicate a proper waiver such can be brought to this Court's attention by a writ of certiorari.
The appellee, State of Indiana, has placed the record of the juvenile waiver proceedings before this Court by a writ of certiorari. From the record of these proceedings it appears that the Posey Circuit Court, sitting in its juvenile capacity, did conduct a proper hearing to determine the question of waiver and that the judge based his decision to waive jurisdiction on the fact that appellant had on three previous occasions been sent to the Indiana Boys' School for juvenile offenses, that appellant was seventeen (17) years of age and that it would therefore be in the best interests of the State and the juvenile to waive jurisdiction to the criminal court. The waiver was thereby in accordance with Summers v. State (1967), Ind., 230 N.E.2d 320 in which this Court delineated guide-lines for the waiver process. In this regard we stated that a juvenile may properly be waived to a criminal court
'If the offense is part of a repetitive pattern of juvenile offenses which would lead to a determination that said juvenile may be beyond rehabilitation under the regular statutory juvenile procedures.' 230 N.E.2d at 325.
We find that there was a proper hearing and waiver by the juvenile court and therefore will consider this appeal on the merits.
Appellant is appealing from a conviction in the circuit court of Posey County, Indiana, of the offense of public indecency, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--2801 (1956 Repl.)
Prosecution was commenced on the basis of an affidavit charging appellant with the above stated crime, 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 sentenced defendant to six months imprisonment.
The error assigned and relied upon by the appellant is the overruling of his motion for a new trial. In his brief appellant presents only two allegations of error. The question of the sufficiency of the evidence has not been argued in appellant's brief and the question is therefore waived. Peltz v. State (1953), 232 Ind. 518, 112 N.E.2d 853.
Appellant first complains that the trial court erred in permitting the twenty-two (22) veniremen who were summoned for petit jury duty to remain in the courtroom prior to the selection of the jury panel and the beginning of the jury trial in the instant case, while two different defendants were arraigned and charged separately with being a minor in possession of alcoholic liquors. Appellant cites no authority for this contention. We cannot say that this was an irregularity in the proceedings as provided in Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--1903(1) (1956 Repl.), since the proceedings in the instant case had not as yet begun. Nor can we find that appellant was prejudiced for there is nothing in the record to indicate prejudice. In fact, when the veniremen were questioned on voir dire, each prospective petit juror indicated that hearing the arraignment of the defendants whose cases were in no way related to appellant's case, would not in any way prejudice them in the trial of his case. Appellant's contention that the veniremen in viewing the arraignment of the separate defendants might be exposed to something in the proceedings which would incriminate or prejudice the defendant, is not a showing of prejudice to the defendant as required by Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--2320 (1956 Repl.) and decisions too numerous to cite. We hold in the instant case there was no prejudice to the appellant in permitting the veniremen to remain in the courtroom during the arraignnent of the other two defendants, and therefore the trial court was not required to excuse the veniremen from the courtroom at appellant's request.
Appellant further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twyman v. State
...(Emphasis added.) Edwards v. State, (1967) 250 Ind. 19, 22, 231 N.E.2d 20, 21, reh. granted as to sufficiency of waiver order, 250 Ind. 23, 234 N.E.2d 845 (1968). "The juvenile court's jurisdiction is exclusive with respect to children charged with crimes (citation omitted). Even if the cou......
-
Kedrowitz v. State
...; Shepard v. State , 273 Ind. 295, 404 N.E.2d 1 (1980) ; Gregory v. State , 270 Ind. 435, 386 N.E.2d 675 (1979) ; Edwards v. State , 250 Ind. 19, 234 N.E.2d 845 (1968) (opinion on reh'g). Although an appellate court has the duty to raise sua sponte a lower court's lack of subject-matter jur......
-
Stewart v. State, 480S97
...Insurance Co. v. Jennings, (1972) 258 Ind. 637, 640, 283 N.E.2d 529, 531. See also: Edwards v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 19, 231 N.E.2d 20, 234 N.E.2d 845. We feel the preferred procedure in this case is to allow the record to be corrected and to consider the case on its merits. We therefore r......
-
American States Ins. Co. v. State ex rel. Jennings
...by the most recent decision of our Supreme Court which deals with the question. In Edwards v. State (1968) 250 Ind. 19, 231 N.E.2d 20, 234 N.E.2d 845, the court specifically permitted the record to be amended upon rehearing by writ of certiorari. Additionally, it might be pointed out that n......