Hall v. State, 377S228
| Decision Date | 20 January 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 377S228,377S228 |
| Citation | 267 Ind. 512,371 N.E.2d 700 |
| Parties | Lawrence HALL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Lante K. Earnest, Klineman, Rose & Wolf, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Susan J. Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was tried and convicted of the crime of armed robbery, under IC 1971, 35-12-1-1.
The evidence most favorable to the State indicates that on November 29, 1975, one, Thomas Vinson, picked up two hitchhikers in eastern Marion County, identified as appellant Hall and his co-defendant Gregory Jines. Shortly after entering Vinson's car, appellant brandished a gun and told Vinson to hand over his money. Vinson complied with the order. Driving south on Road 31, Vinson swerved to hit a police car, but seeing the patrolman's family in the car, swerved away and eventually crashed into a telephone pole. Hall and Jines jumped out of the car and fled into a wooded area. They were later apprehended and identified by Vinson as the bandits. Both were charged with armed robbery. Jines pleaded guilty and agreed to testify for the State in return for being sentenced under the minor statute. However at trial the State chose not to use Jines as one of its witnesses.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in permitting the introduction of State's Exhibit No. 3, a letter from appellant Hall, in which he threatened Jines for cooperating with the State. The prosecutor first attempted to introduce the letter on cross examination of the appellant. An objection on grounds of failure to disclose in response to the pretrial defense motion for disclosure of all evidentiary items was sustained. Later however the trial court permitted the State to introduce the exhibit on cross examination of Jines for impeachment and rebuttal purposes.
Credibility of a witness may be attacked by showing that he may have an ulterior motive or may be under coercion to testify. Brooks v. State (1973) 259 Ind. 678, 291 N.E.2d 559. The letter in the case at bar clearly falls within this category in that it contains threats from Hall to Jines in the event Jines would testify against Hall.
Appellant also argues the letter should have been excluded from evidence because of the element of surprise. In Johns v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 172, 240 N.E.2d 60, this Court held it improper for the trial court to have permitted the State to present four additional witnesses whose names had not been furnished to the defendant. The case at bar is entirely different from the Johns case. Here the State did not know of the letter until the afternoon of the trial. By the time the letter was introduced, there had been sufficient time for appellant and his attorney to review the letter and evaluate its possible impact if used. If the appellant felt he needed more time to evaluate the letter or to further prepare his defense, he could have made a motion for a continuance. Under the circumstances the trial court did not err in permitting the introduction of the letter.
Appellant next claims the trial court erred in giving an instruction to the effect that flight could be considered by the jury as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lindley v. State
...of a witness may be attacked by showing that he may have an ulterior motive or may be under coercion to testify." Hall v. State, (1978) Ind., 371 N.E.2d 700, 701. The point is not that Birlson is "biased against appellant because of his prior fight with the decedent." Evidence of this fight......
-
Hossman v. State
...points out that the credibility of a witness may be attacked by showing that he has an ulterior motive for testifying. Hall v. State (1978), 267 Ind. 512, 371 N.E.2d 700. However, here Hossman's attorney was able to fully cross examine Crumpton. In excluding the testimony regarding the alle......
-
Hossman v. State
...Indiana courts have recognized that the credibility of witnesses may be attacked by cross-examining them as to bias. Hall v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 512, 371 N.E.2d 700; Sears v. State, (1972) 258 Ind. 561, 282 N.E.2d 807; Shanholt v. State, (1979) Ind.App., 448 N.E.2d 308. Refusing the defe......
-
Gary v. State
...a different sentence than that allowed by statute. Ind. Rules for the Appellate Review of Sentences, Rule 2. See also Hall v. State (1978), Ind., 371 N.E.2d 700. The penalty imposed in this case is clearly within statutory Having found no error, we affirm the judgment of the trial court. Af......