Hogan v. State, 29323
| Decision Date | 27 March 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 29323,29323 |
| Parties | Virgil HOGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Thomas M. Moorhead, Jr., Ft. Wayne, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, John E. Hirschman, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant, Hogan, has appealed from a conviction on a charge of possession and use of marijuana, following a trial before the court without a jury. He was sentenced for a period of not less than two nor more than five years at the Indiana State Reformatory. Claimed error is presented here as a result of the overruling of a motion for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was not sufficient to sustain the conviction. More specifically appellant states that there was no proof of the corpus delicti aside from appellant's confession which he claims was obtained by police officers through fear and coercion induced by threats.
The only evidence presented at the trial to sustain the conviction was that of the police officer who obtained the alleged confession from the appellant and whose evidence related solely to the signed confession and the circumstances under which it was taken, and the evidence of another witness, Jennings, who likewise had signed a written statement or confession.
A brief resume of the evidence shows that the police officer stated that the appellant, Hogan, The evidence shows this officer went to the appellant's home, made an inquiry for him, and left word for him to come to the City Hall. The appellant voluntarily came there, underwent interrogation by the officers, and signed a purported confession, which the appellant claims was extorted from him under fear. This was admitted in evidence over the objection of the appellant. The other state's witness, Jennings, when placed on the stand, repudiated his confession or statement involving the appellant and claimed immunity against testifying under the Fifth Amendment. His claim of constitutional immunity was overruled by the court and when his signed statement was presented to him, he repudiated it, and it was offered in evidence solely to impeach the witness, Jennings. Thus, it had no probative value on the guilt or innocence of the appellant, and was competent only for the purpose of impeaching the witness, Jennings. The state interrogated this witness, in part, as follows:
'Q. To refresh your recollection, Mr. Jennings, isn't it a fact that in January of this year you signed a so-called statement to the effect that you had given marijuana cigarettes to the defendant, Mr. Hogan? A. It was a statement made, but as far as----
'Q. Now just a minute, isn't it a fact that you signed such a statement?
'Mr. Moorhead. I want to object to that question for the reason that if he did give a statement, the statement is the best evidence.
'The Court. He may answer.
'A. Oh, I think I did.
'Q. Mr. Jennings, in this instrument, which is marked for identification as State's Exhibit A, which I now hand you, didn't you make the statement that you had purchased marijuana cigarettes for and on behalf of the defendant Virgil Hogan and also give them to Virgil Hogan?
'Mr. Moorhead. I object to that question for the reason that the statement isn't in evidence, that is a self-serving declaration, that the witness is on the witness stand and can testify from his own knowledge and does not have to read from a memorandum or statement.
'The Court. I will overrule the objection.
'A. Before that I answer that question I still would--I haven't got my reply on--I would not like to testify in this case on the ground of the Fifth Amendment, that I might commit myself to incrimination, if that is possible?
'Q. Who else did you do that for? A. Well I mean--would that make much difference in this case, I mean I think that a person----
'The Court. Answer the question, Mr. Witness.
'A. Well that was Albert Jennings.
'Mr. Moorhead. Object to the question that it isn't material in this case.
'The Court. Overruled.
'A. Albert Jennings.
'Q. For Albert Jennings? A. Yes.
'Q. And how much money would you pay for each of these marijuana cigarettes for Albert Jennings?
'Mr. Moorhead. Object to the question for the reason that the Prosecutor has used the term 'marijuana cigarettes,' and hasn't been shown by evidence from this witness or any other witness that the products of this man's doing to any place with money or taking or doing anything else is marijuana.
'Mr. Reber. If the Court please I feel that it is very obvious to the court that this witness is a hostile witness and I feel that the Court knows what the State is attempting to do here, is to lay a foundation for a perjury charge against this witness; that the answers which this defendant is giving are not binding at least at this point upon the defendant. We would like to have the right to proceed with further...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State, 29661
...proof of the corpus delicti in a criminal case is none other than to corroborate a confession before it is admissible. Hogan v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 271, 132 N.E.2d 908. No other reason has been pointed out for the rule. When it serves that purpose there is no reason for extending it furth......
-
Green v. State
...to the facts before us is that a conviction may not rest solely upon a confession of guilt for as stated in Hogan v. State (1956) 235 Ind. 271, 275, 132 N.E.2d 908, 910: 'It is well established law, not only in Indiana but practically all jurisdictions where the common law prevails, that th......
-
Patterson v. State
...been excluded notwithstanding the presence and availability for cross-examination of the out-of-court asserters, i.e. Hogan v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 271, 132 N.E.2d 908; Parker v. State (1925), 196 Ind. 534, 149 N.E. 59. Undoubtedly, there are a host of other such cases. As in Skaggs, the ......
-
Duling v. State, 1--376A41
...the specific crime charged in the indictment or information was committed by someone at the time and place alleged. Hogan v. State (1956), 235 Ind. 271, 132 N.E,2d 908; Parker v. State (1949), 228 Ind. 1, 88 N.E.2d 556. The purpose of the requirement of corroborating evidence is to avoid th......