Grooms v. State, No. 576S154

Docket NºNo. 576S154
Citation379 N.E.2d 458, 269 Ind. 212
Case DateAugust 24, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 458

379 N.E.2d 458
269 Ind. 212
Robert Morgan GROOMS and Arthur James McBride, Appellants,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 576S154.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Aug. 24, 1978.

[269 Ind. 215]

Page 461

Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Bobby Jay Small, David P. Freund, Jerrilee P. Sutherlin, Deputy Public Defenders, Indianapolis, for appellants.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Daniel Lee Pflum, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Appellants Grooms and McBride were found guilty of first-degree murder at the conclusion of a jury trial in the Elkhart Superior Court on November 7, 1975. They were sentenced to life imprisonment. The crime in question is the murder of one Katherine Whitman, whose body was found on a county road on the morning of December 1, 1974.

Fourteen errors are asserted in this appeal concerning: (1) the denial of appellants' motions for change of venue; (2) an alleged non-compliance with the alibi statute by the state; (3) the admission of Appellant Grooms' custodial statements to police into evidence; (4) the admission of appellant Grooms' statements to a polygraph expert into evidence; (5) the admission of testimony concerning an armed robbery by appellants into evidence; (6) the impeachment of a defense witness by the state; (7) an alleged violation of the trial court's discovery order; (8) the admission of autopsy photographs into evidence; (9) foundation for the admission of shell casings and test bullets into evidence; (10) the admission of a prison letter of appellant Grooms into evidence; (11) the exclusion from evidence of certain cigarette butts; (12) the denial of a motion for continuance, made in view of the absence of a defense witness; (13) the exclusion from evidence of appellant Grooms' version of his last encounter with the victim, and; (14) the sufficiency of evidence as to appellant McBride's conviction.

[269 Ind. 216] I.

Appellants argue that it was error for the trial court to deny their motions for change of venue. First, it is argued that change of venue should have been automatic pursuant to Ind.R.Crim.P. 12, providing for such change of venue in death penalty cases. However, the death penalty was not in effect during the time of this case. Next, it is argued that appellants were entitled to change of venue because of pre-trial publicity. This record contains evidence of several local news stories concerning the investigation of this case, some referring to appellants. However, the record does not demonstrate that impressions or opinions had been formed by jurors on the basis of this publicity. See Monserrate v. State (1976) Ind., 352 N.E.2d 721, 723. Also, appellants did not exhaust their peremptory challenges. See Morris v. State (1977) Ind., 364 N.E.2d 132; McFarland v. State (1975) 263 Ind. 657, 336 N.E.2d 824. Thus appellants were in no way harmed by the court's denial of the change of venue motions, and there was no error in their denial.

II.

It is next argued that this case should be reversed because of alleged non-compliance with the alibi statute, Ind.Code § 35-5-1-2 (Burns 1975). It is argued that the state, in response to appellants' notices of alibi, did not give the "exact time and place" of the murder. Thus, it is claimed that testimony in the state's case-in-chief pinpointing the time and place of the killing should have been excluded. The state's response, in question here, stated that the crime occurred in Elkhart County, between 12:15 a. m. and 9:00 a. m. on December 1, 1974. The purpose of the alibi statute is not to compel the exclusion of evidence for purely technical errors. Monserrate v. State (1976) Ind., 352 N.E.2d 721, 725. Further, the exact time of a killing does not have to be given, only the date. Hampton v. State [269 Ind. 217] (1977) Ind.App., 359 N.E.2d 276. The state's response here was sufficiently specific to comply with the alibi statute, and no error is presented here.

Page 462

III.

Appellants next argue that the trial court erred in denying appellant Grooms' Motion to Suppress, and in admitting evidence derived from an inadmissible statement. It is argued at length that statements given by appellant Grooms to police were in violation of the requirements of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694. Grooms' statements to the police, however, were never introduced as part of the state's case-in-chief in this trial. The only part of Grooms' custodial statements to police, admitted on direct testimony in this case, was a part admitted by Grooms himself. Then, other parts of Grooms' statements were admitted by the state in rebuttal, for impeachment purposes. There was no error in this use of Grooms' statements. Harris v. New York (1971) 401 U.S. 222, 91 S.Ct. 643, 28 L.Ed.2d 1; Johnson v. State (1972) 258 Ind. 683, 284 N.E.2d 517, 288 N.E.2d 553. It is further argued that Grooms' allegedly inadmissible statements were the police's only source for their knowledge of a state's witness, who testified at trial. This witness's testimony is thus argued to be "the fruit of a poisonous tree." However, the purpose of having this witness testify was to identify a gun which she said she saw in the possession of appellant Grooms, and neither appellant objected to the admission into evidence of this gun. Thus, whatever the merit of the "fruit of the poisonous tree" theory, no harm is apparent to the appellants from this witness' testimony. We thus find no error in the use of Grooms' custodial statements in this trial.

IV.

Appellants next argue that the testimony of a polygraph expert, Leonard Harrelson, was improperly admitted into [269 Ind. 218] evidence. Harrelson did not testify about any polygraph examinations in the investigation of this case, or the results of such tests. Rather, he testified about a conversation with appellant Grooms in a lounge, in which Grooms admitted killing the decedent. Harrelson testified that he advised Grooms of his rights on the day of this conversation. Further, Harrelson only testified as a rebuttal witness, after Grooms had testified on direct examination that he did not kill the decedent. Harrelson's testimony was thus admissible as a prior inconsistent statement of Grooms, and there is no error here.

V.

Appellants next claim that it was error to admit evidence that they had engaged in an armed robbery the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 practice notes
  • Johnson v. State, No. 1282S500
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 11, 1985
    ...failure to provide a record which permits proper review of the alleged error constitutes a waiver of the issue. Grooms v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 212, 379 N.E.2d 458, cert. denied (1979) 439 U.S. 1131, 99 S.Ct. 1053, 59 L.Ed.2d Defendants claim error in the denial of change of venue based on......
  • Drollinger v. State, No. 778S146
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 26, 1980
    ...(1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 670, 672. See Barber [274 Ind. 15] v. State, (1979) Ind., 388 N.E.2d 511, 512; Grooms v. State, (1978) Ind., 379 N.E.2d 458, 461. In addition, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to continue the trial due to the publicity. Appellant has not convinced us tha......
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...intent, purpose, motive, identification, or a common scheme or plan with respect to the charged crime. Grooms v. State, (1978) Ind., 379 N.E.2d 458, 463; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272, 374 N.E.2d 520, 522; Pierce v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 240, 248, 369 N.E.2d 617, 621. However, ......
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 25, 1980
    ...Lawson had in his possession. These were clearly collateral matters, and not properly the subject of impeachment. Grooms v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 212, 218-19, 379 N.E.2d 458, 462. See Anderson v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 289, 370 N.E.2d 318. In addition, according to defense counsel's offer ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
31 cases
  • Johnson v. State, No. 1282S500
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 11, 1985
    ...failure to provide a record which permits proper review of the alleged error constitutes a waiver of the issue. Grooms v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 212, 379 N.E.2d 458, cert. denied (1979) 439 U.S. 1131, 99 S.Ct. 1053, 59 L.Ed.2d Defendants claim error in the denial of change of venue based on......
  • Drollinger v. State, No. 778S146
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 26, 1980
    ...(1979) Ind., 386 N.E.2d 670, 672. See Barber [274 Ind. 15] v. State, (1979) Ind., 388 N.E.2d 511, 512; Grooms v. State, (1978) Ind., 379 N.E.2d 458, 461. In addition, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to continue the trial due to the publicity. Appellant has not convinced us tha......
  • Norton v. State, No. 377S185
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • August 4, 1980
    ...intent, purpose, motive, identification, or a common scheme or plan with respect to the charged crime. Grooms v. State, (1978) Ind., 379 N.E.2d 458, 463; Willis v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 269, 272, 374 N.E.2d 520, 522; Pierce v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 240, 248, 369 N.E.2d 617, 621. However, ......
  • Lawson v. State, No. 1177S797
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 25, 1980
    ...Lawson had in his possession. These were clearly collateral matters, and not properly the subject of impeachment. Grooms v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 212, 218-19, 379 N.E.2d 458, 462. See Anderson v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 289, 370 N.E.2d 318. In addition, according to defense counsel's offer ......
  • 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