Griffith v. State, 29703
| Decision Date | 30 March 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 29703,29703 |
| Citation | 239 Ind. 321,157 N.E.2d 191 |
| Parties | Claude GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Taylor & Allen, Harry S. Taylor, South Bend, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty, Gen., Owen S. Boling, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted and tried on five counts, including burglary and armed robbery. He was found guilty of the included offense of grand larceny. Appellant does not question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, but relies solely upon asserted error in the admission of evidence.
During the rebuttal examination the court permitted the state, over the objection of the appellant, to question a witness regarding appellant's use of a gun during the incident. The state had previously introduced evidence by other witnesses regarding this fact during its case in chief.
Orderly procedure requires that a party not divide his evidence in chief and give part in chief and part in rebuttal and if he goes into a subject originally he should present all of his evidence upon that point, and, if he does not do so, he cannot complain that he is not permitted to present such evidence out of order, except on showing a clear abuse of discretion by the court. Hilker v. Hilker, 1899, 153 Ind. 425, 55 N.E. 81; Fitzpatrick v. Papa, 1883, 89 Ind. 17. The order of procedure is prescribed by statute [§ 9-1805, Burns' 1956 Repl.] [Acts 1909, ch. 96, § 1, p. 257; 1927, ch. 132, § 14, p. 411]. However in applying the rule as codified in the statute, we must recognize the fact that the trial judge is originally and inherently responsible for the orderly progress of the trial. Therefore, statutes which circumscribe the order of the procedure to be followed in the trial of cases must be liberally construed in favor of the trial judge who has permitted a witness to testify out of the prescribed order.
Therefore, even though the court permits a witness to testify during rebuttal regarding a matter which, in fact, is not in rebuttal but is a matter related to the state's case in chief, the irregularity will not be treated as reversible error unless under the circumstances the appellant was prevented from presenting rebuttal evidence thereto. See, 8 I.L.E., Criminal Law, § 353, pp. 412, 413. Ewbanks Ind.Crim.Law, Symmes Ed., § 339, p. 203; Ewbanks Ind.Crim.Law, 2d Ed., § 561, p. 377. Also, see Zimmerman v. State, 1921, 190 Ind. 537, 544, 130 N.E. 235; Hansen v. State, 1952, 230 Ind. 635, 643, 106 N.E.2d 226. There is no showing in this case that this action of the court in any way prevented appellant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCullough v. Archbold Ladder Co.
...testimony admitted on rebuttal presents no reversible error. Wesby v. State (1989), Ind., 535 N.E.2d 133, 137; Griffith v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 321, 323, 157 N.E.2d 191, 192. with Taylor's testimony during McCullough's case-in-chief. The second, applicable here, is that admitting evidence......
-
Williams v. State
...State, (1972) 258 Ind. 439, 281 N.E.2d 885, 887; Hollowell v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 467, 269 N.E.2d 755, 758-59; Griffith v. State, (1959) 239 Ind. 321, 157 N.E.2d 191, 192; Hansen v. State, (1952) 230 Ind. 635, 106 N.E.2d 226, 229. In this case the defendant had an opportunity to present ......
-
Chatman v. State, 1273S250
...although he not be rpeviously named upon the list of witnesses. Shelby v. State (1972), 258 Ind. 439, 281 N.E.2d 885; Griffith v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 321, 157 N.E.2d 191. ISSUE XIII. DENIAL OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW BY PROSECUTORIAL Under this heading, the defendant re-argues his assignments......
-
Raymer v. State
...will not be treated as reversible error unless the defendant was prevented from presenting rebuttal evidence thereto. Griffith v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 321, 157 N.E.2d 191; Hollowell v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 467, 269 N.E.2d 755. * * * Raymer did present additional evidence after the State......