Hendrix v. State

Decision Date15 April 1981
Docket NumberNo. 780S195,780S195
Citation275 Ind. 600,418 N.E.2d 1161
PartiesJames Odis HENDRIX, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent Below).
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Nile Stanton, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Stephen J. Cuthbert, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PRENTICE, Justice.

Petitioner (Appellant) was convicted of Murder in the First Degree in a trial by jury. His direct appeal resulted in an affirmance. Hendrix v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701. This appeal from the denial of post conviction relief presents the competence of his trial counsel as the sole issue for our consideration.

Specifically, the petitioner charges that counsel's incompetence was demonstrated by his trial in four respects.

Defendant had interposed a claim of self defense. He had, on a prior occasion, successfully employed that defense and had also been charged, as a juvenile in California, for assault with a deadly weapon. By direct examination of his client, trial counsel disclosed these prior incidents. Subsequently, in summation, the prosecutor commented upon them in a manner depreciative of the defense.

The post conviction hearing judge found that counsel's action in disclosing his client's past was a tactical decision. This finding is supported by counsel's testimony.

The claim that counsel should have objected to the prosecutor's commenting upon such evidence was disposed of in petitioner's direct appeal.

"Yet, even as we choose to examine the merits of appellant's claim, his assertion still fails. The record discloses that the prosecutor was referring to the direct testimony of appellant, who chose to testify in his own behalf. Therefore, such comment was patently proper." 262 Ind. at 312, 315 N.E.2d at 703.

Petitioner's contention that trial counsel suppressed his own client's exculpatory statement is puzzling. The statement was made shortly after the shooting incident and was to the effect that he had shot the decedent in self defense. The statement was inculpatory as well as exculpatory. Viewed as an exculpatory statement, it was not admissible. Petitioner's claim that prior statements consistent with a witness' testimony are admissible to refute an attack upon his version of the occurrence is incorrect and not supported by the authorities which he cites. There had been no impeachment of the defendant's testimony.

Additionally, the statement would only have been cumulative of petitioner's trial testimony and the post conviction judge's finding that counsel's decision could have been tactical is supported by the record.

Petitioner contends that trial counsel did not prepare adequately for the trial, but the evidence brought forth at the post conviction hearing does not compel this conclusion. Contrary to Petitioner's claim, the record reflects that counsel interviewed witnesses, had numerous discussions with Petitioner about his available options, and informed him of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Hendrix v. Evans, Civ. No. S 84-625.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • March 15, 1989
    ...Hendrix v. Duckworth, No. S81-190 (N.D.Ind. Oct. 15, 1981), aff'd, 720 F.2d 682 (7th Cir. 1983) (habeas corpus petition); Hendrix v. State, 418 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind.1981) (post-conviction relief appeal); Hendrix v. State, 262 Ind. 309, 315 N.E.2d 701 (1974) (appeal of conviction). ...
  • Wilkins v. State, 3-181A13
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 28, 1981
    ...... Hendrix . Page 63 . v. State (1981), Ind., 418 N.E.2d 1161; Herman v. State (1979), Ind., 395 N.E.2d 249. The reviewing court looks to both quantitative ......
  • Hill v. State, 682S226
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 16, 1982
    ...isolated mistake of defense counsel alone rendered the proceedings a mockery of justice or shocking to the conscience. Hendrix v. State, (1981) Ind. 418 N.E.2d 1161; Huggins v. State, (1980) Ind. 403 N.E.2d Defendant asserts, however, that the effect of the miscue was exacerbated by other d......
  • Cochran v. State, 681S164
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 7, 1983
    ...to criticism. Dean v. State, (1982) Ind., 432 N.E.2d 40, reh. denied; Carlyle v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 10; Hendrix v. State, (1981) Ind., 418 N.E.2d 1161; Duncan v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d Petitioner Cochran's complaints about his trial counsel are matters of trial strategy ......
  • 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