Good v. State, 271S36

Docket NºNo. 271S36
Citation267 Ind. 29, 366 N.E.2d 1169
Case DateSeptember 14, 1977
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1169

366 N.E.2d 1169
267 Ind. 29
William K. GOOD, Appellant,
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 271S36.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept. 14, 1977.

[267 Ind. 30] Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Kenneth R. Stamm, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Appellant Good was convicted of theft of property of a value of over one hundred dollars, on November 10, 1970, in Greene Circuit Court, and sentenced to not less than one nor more than ten years. *

Page 1170

The most important issue presented is whether appellant waived his right to a jury trial. We find that he did not, and accordingly reverse this conviction.

The relevant entries in the record, with respect to the question presented, are as follows:

[267 Ind. 31] (1) On September 14, 1970, appellant appeared in court with his attorney. He waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. The cause was set for trial on October 15, 1970.

(2) On October 14, 1970, appellant appeared by his attorney and requested a continuance. The motion was granted, and the cause was then set for October 21, 1970.

(3) On October 21, 1970, by agreement of the parties, the cause was reset for trial at 9:30 a. m., November 10, 1970.

(4) On November 10, 1970, appellant, the prosecuting attorney, and the judge were present at the appointed time for trial to begin. Appellant's attorney, however, was not present, and did not appear until 10:30 a. m. When he arrived, appellant's attorney counselled briefly with appellant in open court. Appellant's attorney then told the judge that his client wished to have a jury trial, and that appellant's understanding was that he would get one. The judge stated that there was no indication in the record that appellant had requested a jury, and that it was the court's understanding that appellant was to have a trial by the court only. The judge thereupon denied the motion for a jury trial, tried the case before the court and found appellant guilty on the evidence.

In summary, the only mention of a jury in this entire record was on the morning of November 10, 1970, when the trial was about to begin and appellant's attorney indicated in open court that his client was demanding a jury trial. After appellant's conviction, however, conflicting affidavits were filed by the trial judge, the prosecutor, appellant Good, and appellant's trial attorney. These affidavits allege further occurrences on the above-mentioned dates, not reflected in the record.

The trial judge and the prosecuting attorney filed an affidavit together. They state that on October 21, appellant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 cases
  • Horton v. State, 79S02–1510–CR–628.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 21 Abril 2016
    ...precedent has repeatedly affirmed the personal waiver requirement,2 51 N.E.3d 1159 beginning with this Court's decision in Good v. State, 267 Ind. 29, 366 N.E.2d 1169 (1977). There, the defendant claimed improper jury trial waiver where he never personally communicated assent to a bench tri......
  • Johnson v. State, 582
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 17 Noviembre 1983
    ...waived in writing his jury trial right. Rodgers v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 57. Appellant now relies on Good v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 29, 366 N.E.2d 1169, reh. denied, and Cunningham v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 433 N.E.2d 405, to support her argument that her waiver of a jury trial wa......
  • Eldridge v. State, 49A02-9302-CR-87
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 27 Enero 1994
    ...must be voluntary, knowing, intelligent, and personal. Wilson v. State (1983), Ind.App., 453 N.E.2d 340, 341 (citing Good v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 29, 32, 366 N.E.2d 1169, The record in this cause fails to establish the elements of an intelligent, knowing, and personal waiver of the right ......
  • Judy v. State, 2-684A189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 8 Noviembre 1984
    ...jury and the case was tried in that manner. Citing the language of the statute and our Supreme Court's decision in Good v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 29, 366 N.E.2d 1169 Judy argues that it was reversible error to permit a six member jury to hear his case without his express consent. The issue,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT