Hayden v. State, No. 30363

Docket NºNo. 30363
Citation199 N.E.2d 102, 245 Ind. 591
Case DateJune 12, 1964
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

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.

[245 Ind. 593]

Page 104

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.

[245 Ind. 594] 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 [245 Ind. 595] 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.

Page 105

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.

[245 Ind. 596] 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 [245 Ind. 597] 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 practice notes
  • People v. Lara, Cr. 10061
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 29, 1967
    ...261 N.Y.S.2d 42, 209 N.E.2d 93 (murder confession of 14-year-old held voluntary, although not put in evidence). 10 Hayden v. State (1964) 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102, 107--108 (murder); opinion distinguishes Gallegos on its facts; Commonwealth v. Green (1959) 396 Pa. 137, 151 A.2d 241, 244......
  • Green v. State, No. 2--1072A72
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 27, 1973
    ...and would in a sense eliminate the value of confessions.' (Emphasis supplied) And in Hayden v. State (1964) 245 Ind. 591, 595, 199 N.E.2d 102, 105, 201 N.E.2d 'This court has stated the reason for this rule, as follows: 'The purpose of requiring the proof of the corpus delicti in a criminal......
  • Coney v. State, No. 55561
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1973
    ...44 Ill.2d 256, 255 N.E.2d 442; Green v. State, 236 Md. 334, 203 A.2d 870; State v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 405 P.2d 761; Hayden v. State, 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102, 201 N.E.2d 329; and Miller v. State, 251 Md. 362, 247 A.2d 530. In this pre-Miranda case the vital question is whether under ......
  • Jones v. State, No. 868
    • United States
    • December 5, 1969
    ...Warren Antoine. It thus appears the facts in this case are on all fours with and supported by Hayden v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102, 201 N.E.2d The statement in the opinion relative to dicta and confusion and attempting by the majority opinion herein to overrule all statement......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
25 cases
  • People v. Lara, Cr. 10061
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • September 29, 1967
    ...261 N.Y.S.2d 42, 209 N.E.2d 93 (murder confession of 14-year-old held voluntary, although not put in evidence). 10 Hayden v. State (1964) 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102, 107--108 (murder); opinion distinguishes Gallegos on its facts; Commonwealth v. Green (1959) 396 Pa. 137, 151 A.2d 241, 244......
  • Green v. State, No. 2--1072A72
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • December 27, 1973
    ...and would in a sense eliminate the value of confessions.' (Emphasis supplied) And in Hayden v. State (1964) 245 Ind. 591, 595, 199 N.E.2d 102, 105, 201 N.E.2d 'This court has stated the reason for this rule, as follows: 'The purpose of requiring the proof of the corpus delicti in a criminal......
  • Coney v. State, No. 55561
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • March 12, 1973
    ...44 Ill.2d 256, 255 N.E.2d 442; Green v. State, 236 Md. 334, 203 A.2d 870; State v. White, 146 Mont. 226, 405 P.2d 761; Hayden v. State, 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102, 201 N.E.2d 329; and Miller v. State, 251 Md. 362, 247 A.2d 530. In this pre-Miranda case the vital question is whether under ......
  • Jones v. State, No. 868
    • United States
    • December 5, 1969
    ...Warren Antoine. It thus appears the facts in this case are on all fours with and supported by Hayden v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 591, 199 N.E.2d 102, 201 N.E.2d The statement in the opinion relative to dicta and confusion and attempting by the majority opinion herein to overrule all statement......
  • 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