Hayden v. State, 30363

• Decision Date: 12 June 1964
• Docket Number: No. 30363,30363
• Citation: 199 N.E.2d 102,245 Ind. 591
• Parties: Charles William HAYDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 102

199 N.E.2d 102

245 Ind. 591

Charles William HAYDEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 30363.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 12, 1964.

Richard M. Orr, Money, Orr, Bridwell & Fink, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Edgar S. Husted, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ACHOR, Chief Justice.

The appellant, a 15 year old boy, a high school sophomore, was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to the indictment charging murder in the first degree and murder in the commission of a robbery, and the cause was submitted to trial by jury which found the appellant guilty of murder in the commission of a robbery.

Specifically the appellant was accused of a 'purse-grab' robbery of an 82 year old white woman, who died as a result of the injuries suffered at the hands of her alleged attacker. After a pre-sentence investigation, judgment was entered against the appellant upon the verdict, sentencing him to life imprisonment. Thereafter, the appellant filed his motion for a new trial, which was overruled and this appeal followed.

The appellant assigns as error:

1. The overruling of appellant's motion for new trial.

2. The judgment was void, in that the appellant was denied his constitutional rights to due process and a fair trial, under Art. 1, § 13 of the Indiana Constitution, for the following reasons:

a. He was represented by incompetent counsel.

b. A confession taken from him without due process of law admitted in evidence, without proper objections.

As to the first assignment of error, the appellant stated that the court erred in refusing Instruction No. 12, which is as rollows:

'You are instructed where an extra-judicial confession is given by the defendant, charged with the commission of a particular crime, before he can be found guilty thereof, it is essential that the existence of the Corpus Delicti be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, which cannot be done by mere extra-judicial confession of the defendant.' [Our emphasis.]

The corpus delicti need not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The law upon this subject has been stated as follows:

'Generally, an extra-judicial confession will not be admitted in evidence and a conviction will not be upheld unless the corpus delicti is established by clear proof independent of the confession, * * * Such independent corborative evidence may be circumstantial, and need not of itself be full and conclusive or sufficient to establish the corpus delicti beyond a reasonable doubt, * * *' [Our emphasis.] 8 I.L.E. Criminal Law § 185, pp. 281-282.

Also, see: Holding v. State (1963), Ind., 190 N.E.2d 660; Dunbar v. State (1962), 242 Ind. 161, 177 N.E.2d 452; Markiton v. State (1957), 236 Ind. 232, 139 N.E.2d 440.

This court has stated the reason for this rule, as follows:

'The purpose of requiring the proof of the corpus delicti in a criminal case is none other than to corroborate a confession before it is admissible. * * *

'Proof of the corpus delicti should not be confused, as it sometimes is, with the recognized requirement in all cases that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt all the material allegations as charged. * * * Proof of the corpus delicti sufficient to corroborate a confession and make it admissible does not relieve the state of the burden of proving the crime as charged beyond a reasonable doubt. * * *' Brown v. State (1959), 239 Ind. 184, 202, 203, 154 N.E.2d 720, 728.

Appellant's tendered Instruction No. 12 was properly refused.

Further, appellant alleges error in overruling specifications 15, 19 and 20 of the motion for new trial.

Specification 15:

'Error of Law occurring at the trial in that Court erred in overruling the defendant's Motion for a Directed Verdict of Not Guilty.'

Specification 19:

'That the verdict of the Jury is contrary to law.'

Specification 20:

'That the verdict of the Jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.'

It is here argued, as supporting each of the above grounds for new trial, that proof of the corpus delicti, which is necessary prior to the admission of the extra-judicial confession, was not sustained by sufficient evidence.

Since the charge involved is that of murder in the commission of a robbery, we therefore first examine the evidence, for the purpose of determining whether it is sufficient to sustain the corpus delicti as to both the alleged robbery and murder. Subsequently we will consider whether all of the evidence, including the extra-judicial confession, was sufficient to prove appellant guilty of the crime charged.

Decedent was a frail woman, 82 years of age. She was found lying inside the entrance to the apartment building where she lived in the 1300 block of North Delaware Street in the city of Indianapolis. Blood was flowing from her mouth, nose and ears. When found, her body had many marks of violence upon it. Evidence from police and medical authorities indicated that the victim could have been assailed and pushed against the door of the apartment building, thus causing the injuies and marks of violence. The woman later died these injuries.

Next we examine the evidence, independent of the confession, in support of the fact that the victim had been robbed. There is evidence that the victim had a purse which contained money and numerous items of personal effects on her person shortly before the alleged attack. The purse and items were not on her person when she was discovered. The personal effects, except the money, were discovered following the alleged attack in an alley near the apartment building where the deceased lived.

Under the above evidence, we are of the opinion that ordinary men might reasonably conclude that the deceased did not die of natural causes and that the injuies from which she died were inflicted in the course of a robbery. Such evidence was sufficient to establish the necessary corpus delicti in a robbery-murder charge. The cases of Holding v. State, ¹ and BROWN V. STATE, SUPRA², involved a similar factual situation.

In considering the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, we take into consideration the fact that the jury had before it the above evidence. It also had appellant's confession that he had committed a 'purse-grab' upon an elderly woman as she entered the apartment building shortly before the victim was found and that he committed the act by running into the victim from behind and simultaneously hitting her with his shoulder while the purse. He explained that he used this method on this and other 'pursegrab' victims so that they would not see him before he grabbed their purse and he would be gone before they could recover and see who he was. A police officer testified that, in demonstrating his technique, appellant had hit him with his shoulder with such force as to knock him half way across the room.

Clearly the above evidence was sufficient that this court, as a court of appeal, may not disturb the finding of the trier of facts. Echterling et ux. v. Kalvaitis et ux. (1956), 235 Ind. 141, 126 N.E.2d 573; Walb Construction Co. v. Chipman (1931), 202 Ind. 434, 175 N.E. 132.

As to the second assignment of error, the appellant asserts that his constitutional rights were violated as to due process and fair trial because of (a) incompetency of counsel, and as one of the evidences of such incompetency, appellant argues that counsel permitted (b) the admission of appellant's 'illegal confession' without proper objections.

In considering the above issue, we are at the outset confronted by the fact that appellant did not raise the question of competency of counsel in the trial court, but presented the matter in the first instance on appeal to this court.

It is the general rule, under the established practice of this state, that all errors occurring prior to or during the trial, and relied upon as cause for reversal on appeal, must first be assigned as grounds in support of the motion for new trial. Rule 2-6. ³ Brown v. State, supra, 239 Ind. 184, 154 N.E.2d 720; Kraus v. Kraus, Executor, Etc. et al. (1956), 235 Ind. 325, 132 N.E.2d 608; Indiana Union Traction Co. v. Keiter (1911), 175 Ind. 268, 92 N.E. 982; Northern Ind. Pub. Service Co. v. Nielsen (1952), 123 Ind.App. 199, 109 N.E.2d 442.

Such errors may not ordinarily be presented for the first time in the assignment of errors on appeal to this court, although conceivably a possible exception to the rule might be made where the error appears as a matter of record and is of such a nature that this court can take judicial knowledge that such error being present, the appellant could not, under any circumstances, have had a fair trial. However, where the error asserted involves an issue of fact, it is imperative in the appellate process that the trier of facts be given an opportunity to consider and render a determination regarding such issues prior to appeal.

The facts of this case do not bring it within an exception to the rule, as above enunicated.

Appellant cites and relies upon the cases of Blincoe v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 387, 185 N.E.2d 729, and Wilson v. State (1943), 222 Ind. 63, 51 N.E.2d 848, as supporting the propriety of presenting the issue for the first time on appeal as a separate assignment of error. However, the cases do not sustain this position. In Blincoe v. State, supra, the trial court reviewed the question of incompetency of counsel under appellant's motion for new trial, and the case of Wilson v. State, supra, was decided prior to the adoption of Rule 2-6 (1960), supra.

Under our procedure, it is the duty of trial counsel to file a motion for new trial, if, in his opinion, error was committed in the trial which may have been prejudicial to the cause of his client. However, it is obvious that trial counsel could not reasonably be expected to assert his own incompetency in a motion for new trial....