Ingram v. State
| Decision Date | 28 September 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 1080S393,1080S393 |
| Citation | 426 N.E.2d 18 |
| Parties | James H. INGRAM, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Dolores Goldman, Merrillville, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Kathleen G. Lucas, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant (Appellant) was convicted of two (2) counts of Murder, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-1 (Burns 1979), after trial by jury and sentenced to consecutive sentences of imprisonment for fifty (50) years upon each.
Under the "Statement of Issues" section of his brief, we find the following:
"The issues of fact were formed by the Indictments charging the appellant with two counts of Murder and a third count of Capital Murder, (Tr. pp. 10-14) and appellant's plea of Not Guilty entered April 3, 1979, (Tr. p. 19)."
These are the issues which were before the trial court, and this statement presents nothing for review to this Court. McCraney The argument section of the brief presents six issues preserved for appellate review by the motion to correct errors. However, it is there conceded that four of such issues are without merit. Thus we are here concerned with two issues:
v. State, (1981) Ind., 425 N.E.2d 151; Ind.R.App.P. 8.3(A)(3).
(1) Whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion for a directed verdict made at the close of the State's evidence.
(2) Whether the trial court erred in sustaining the State's relevancy objections to questions propounded to a State's witness on cross-examination.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict, at the close of the State's evidence. This assignment is not available, however, inasmuch as he did not stand upon the motion but introduced evidence in his defense. Miller v. State, (1981) Ind., 417 N.E.2d 339, 340; Love v. State, (1980) Ind., 400 N.E.2d 1371, 1374. Nevertheless, in this instance, we have reviewed the evidence as if a proper challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence had been assigned, to assure that a meritorious appeal not be defeated by a procedural error.
Defendant was charged with killing his wife, Lucy, and their daughter, Omega, while committing arson. The evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the verdict, reveals that the defendant and his brother, Maurice Gaines, acted in concert to burn down an apartment building in Gary, Indiana. Omega, Lucy's two sons, Anthony and Edward French, Lucy's sister, Earline French, and Earline's children were in Lucy's apartment on the night of the fire. The defendant was at the building only moments before the fire began. Anthony saw the defendant enter the building with two gasoline cans. He heard the sound of pouring liquid and heard the fire start. Gaines and the defendant then fled by automobile. Earline French attempted to save as many persons from the apartment as she could; however, she could not reach Omega, who was later found dead. Earline, expecting Lucy to follow, jumped out a window.
Defendant and Lucy were estranged a few days prior to the fire, she had refused to speak to him on the telephone and he threatened her, saying that she had better stay off the street. There was substantial evidence from which the jury could find that the cause of the fire was arson, and the defendant's claim that there was a failure of proof that defendant knowingly and intentionally set the fire is without merit.
Loyd v. State, (1980) Ind., 398 N.E.2d 1260, 1264, cert. denied, (1980) --- U.S. ----, 101 S.Ct. 231, 66 L.Ed.2d 105.
We find that the evidence is sufficient to support the convictions.
The owner of the burned apartment, Mr. Otano, testified in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Knisley v. State
...must be limited to the scope of the witness' direct testimony. See, e.g., Lambert v. State (1983), Ind., 448 N.E.2d 288; Ingram v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 18; Dean v. State (1980), 272 Ind. 446, 398 N.E.2d 1270. Therefore, although questions regarding Knisley's sexual acts with F.H. ......
-
Hudgins v. State
...Ind. 196, 379 N.E.2d 451, as are the scope and extent of cross-examination. Smith v. State, (1982) Ind., 439 N.E.2d 634; Ingram v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 18. Along with this discretion is the obligation to preserve the fairness and integrity of the trial by conducting proceedings in......
-
Wilburn v. State
...waives any allegation of error on appeal as to the denial of the motion. Havens v. State, (1981) Ind., 429 N.E.2d 618; Ingram v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 18; Korn v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 181, 379 N.E.2d 444. The allegation of error as to denial of the motion is Nevertheless, in this......
-
Boone v. State
... ... Guardiola v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 404, 405, 375 N.E.2d 1105, 1107. Lastly, in paragraph seven, Petitioner assigned error to the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, an assignment which he abandoned when he presented evidence in his defense. Ingram v. State, (1981) Ind., 426 N.E.2d 18, 19 ... Though Petitioner asserts various failings of his appellate counsel, which he claims rise to the level of abdicating the responsibilities of an attorney, he does not specifically address any one meritorious issue claimed to have been ... ...