Hendrickson v. State, 29066
| Decision Date | 12 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 29066,29066 |
| Citation | 118 N.E.2d 493,233 Ind. 341 |
| Parties | HENDRICKSON v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert D. Ellison, Perry W. Cross, Shelbyville, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Richard M. Givan, Dep. Atty. Gen., for appellEE.
Appellant was charged by amended affidavit in two counts, Count One charging rape under Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 3, p. 447, being § 10-4201, Burns' 1942 Replacement, and Count Two charging kidnaping under Acts 1929, ch. 154, § 1, p. 477, being § 10-2901, Burns' 1942 Replacement, tried by jury, found guilty on both counts, and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for two to twenty-one years on Count One, and for life on Count Two.
The errors upon which appellant relies are not presented in his motion for a new trial, the overruling of which is the only error here assigned. However, appellant asserts that he was denied due process of law and did not have adequate representation by counsel, and, as a result thereof, his constitutional rights were so violated that the judgment of the trial court should be reversed regardless of his failure to comply with the settled rules of procedure.
The errors which allegedly affected appellant's constitutional rights are set out in his brief with supporting bill of exceptions.
To support his position appellant relies upon Wilson v. State, 1943, 222 Ind. 63, 51 N.E.2d 848. That case presented a procedural question identical to that with which we are now faced. However, the facts in the Wilson case differ so materially from those in the case at bar that it can be considered as authority only on the question of procedure. Without reciting the factual situation in the Wilson case, it is sufficient to state that not only the conduct of Wilson's attorney, but also the court, was such as to constitute a flagrant violation of appellant's rights. The matters which prompted this court to disregard the established rules of procedure and decide the questions raised in the Wilson case are not present in the case at bar.
In the case in which we are now asked to set aside and ignore all rules of procedure, appellant was represented by competent counsel of his own choosing, on arraignment, and at all steps of the proceedings. Nine witnesses were called by counsel to testify in appellant's behalf. A motion for a change of venue from the county and from the judge was timely filed, and a change of judge granted. Motion to quash the original affidavit was timely filed by appellant's counsel and sustained by the court. Counsel objected to the introduction of appellant's confessions in evidence and submitted testimony, in the absence of the jury, to support the objections, which were overruled. Numerous objections to the admission of testimony were interposed by counsel for the appellant during the examination of state's witnesses by the prosecuting attorney. Five separate instructions were tendered by appellant's counsel and given by the court as submitted.
There was no interference by the court in this case as in the Wilson case, but on the contrary appellant was given every consideration by the court and the record here discloses that he had a fair and impartial trial, and a just result was reached.
The acts and omissions of appellant's counsel relied upon to establish the alleged inadequacy of counsel are: (1) His failure to object to certain instructions given by the court; (2) his failure to object to certain testimony pertaining to the sanity of appellant; (3) his failure to object to the introduction into evidence of a knife which belonged to appellant; (4) his failure to pursue and obtain a change of venue from the county; (5) his failure to secure a reduction of the bail bond; and (6) his failure to object to an instruction which contained the word 'killing.' These charges are, we believe, far short of being sufficient to establish the alleged incompetency of ap...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Henry v. State
...v. Maryland, 223 Md. 89, 162 A.2d 468 (1960); Wilson v. State, 222 Ind. 63, 51 N.E.2d 848 (1943), an Indiana case; Hendrickson v. State, 233 Ind. 341, 118 N.E.2d 493 (1954), an Indiana case; People v. Robinson, 23 Ill.2d 27, 177 N.E.2d 132 (1961), an Illinois case; O'Malley v. United States......
-
Watson v. Department of Public Welfare of Harrison County
...imports verity. The necessity of following rules of procedure is well stated in the Supreme Court opinion of Hendrickson v. State, 1954, 233 Ind. 341, 344, 118 N.E.2d 493, 495, wherein Judge Bobbitt, speaking for the court, stated: 'The rules of procedure must usually be observed by litigan......
-
Blackburn v. State
...fact that another attorney might have conducted the defense differently is not sufficient to require a reversal. Hendrickson v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 341, 118 N.E.2d 493. Isolated poor strategy, bad tactics, a mistake, carelessness, or inexperience does not necessarily amount to ineffectiv......
-
Isaac v. State, 970S218
...supra; Langley v. State (1968), 250 Ind. 29, 232 N.E.2d 611; Haley v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 333, 133 N.E.2d 565; Hendrickson v. State (1954), 233 Ind. 341, 118 N.E.2d 493. Failure to file notice of alibi does not necessarily deprive appellants of their right to effective counsel. Wagner v.......