Jessup v. State, 1069S253
| Decision Date | 13 May 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 1069S253,1069S253 |
| Citation | 256 Ind. 409,269 N.E.2d 374 |
| Parties | Jerald Irvin JESSUP, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
J. Bayne Burton, Anderson, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, William F. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was charged by affidavit in three counts: Count 1) Assault and battery with intent to commit a felony, to-wit: murder; Count 2) Aggravated assault and battery, and Count 3) Habitual criminal. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict of guilty of aggravated assault and battery and a finding that the appellant was an habitual criminal as charged in Count 3. The court first imposed sentence on the finding of guilty of aggravated assault and battery and sentenced the appellant to the Indiana State Prison for not less than one nor more than five years, and further upon the finding that the appellant was an habitual criminal the court sentenced him to the Indiana State Prison for life.
The record in this case discloses the following facts:
On the 17th day of October, 1968, the appellant was serving a sentence as an inmate of the Indiana State Reformatory at Pendleton, Indiana. His work assignment on that day was to serve milk to his fellow inmates at breakfast. Upon a complaint by the cook that the appellant was serving more than one dipper of milk to some of the inmates thereby causing a shortage, Lt. McConlis, a guard on duty in the dining room at that time, admonished the appellant to serve one cup to each prisoner; whereupon appellant refused to serve at all, shoved one of the officers and while armed with a knife stood with his back to the wall and announced that he was not going to the guardhouse until he ate his breakfast. Capt. Urbans, the officer in charge at the time, told the appellant to eat his breakfast but that after breakfast he would have to go 'to solitary' for his conduct. Appellant obtained his breakfast and seated himself at the proper place to eat before going with the officer.
During the time the appellant was eating his breakfast Officer Conley had a short conversation with the appellant, during which the appellant jumped to his feet and cut Officer Conley across his face with a knife.
The appellant first alleges error in that the trial court over objection by the appellant permitted Reformatory officers and the sheriff to bring the appellant into the court room handcuffed to a restraining chain around his waist and also that two of the witnesses who testified in appellant's behalf, who were also inmates of the Indiana State Reformatory, were brought into the court room handcuffed in like manner. In each instance, although the jury did observe the entry of the appellant and the witnesses into the court room, once the appellant and the witnesses were inside the court room the handcuffs and chains were removed and both the appellant and the witnesses remained unrestrained except for the presence of the guards throughout the proceedings.
Appellant also claims the jury was prejudiced in like manner by reason of their presence in the hall of the court house at a time when the Reformatory guards were removing appellant from the court room and had again shackled him with the restraining chain and handcuffs. It is true as argued by the appellant that the general law in this state is that a criminal defendant should be brought to trial unfettered for the reason that his presence in the court room so restrained would have a tendency to prejudice the jury against him. See Hall v. State (1928), 199 Ind. 592, 159 N.E. 420. However, in the Hall case the Court went on to say at pages 600 and 601, 159 N.E. at page 423:
'But where the trial court has good reason to believe that the defendant is a desperate and dangerous criminal, and there is serious danger of his harming those about him in the courtroom or of his attempting to escape or being released by others, it may exercise its sound and enlightened discretion and order him restrained in such reasonable manner as it deems necessary.
In the case at bar the appellant was an inmate of the Indiana State Reformatory at the time of the commission of the alleged offense. It was also alleged in Count 3 that he was an habitual criminal reciting three separate previous crimes: 1) He was convicted for petit larceny, which was shown by the evidence to be a conviction on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. McMannis v. Mohn
...State v. Chavez, 98 Ariz. 236, 403 P.2d 545 (1965); State v. Crawford, 99 Idaho 87, 577 P.2d 1135, 1146 (1978); Jessup v. State, 256 Ind. 409, 269 N.E.2d 374 (1971); Commonwealth v. Brown, 364 Mass. 471, 305 N.E.2d 830 (1973); State v. Coursolle, 255 Minn. 384, 97 N.W.2d 472, 75 A.L.R.2d 75......
-
Deck v. Missouri
...113 (1974) (where defendant was an inmate, his appearance at arraignment in leg irons did not prejudice him); Jessup v. State, 256 Ind. 409, 413, 269 N. E. 2d 374, 376 (1971) ("It would be unrealistic indeed . . . to hold that it was reversible error for jurors to observe the transportation......
-
Baker v. State
...and harmless to the defendant under the requirements of the habitual offender statute. Hall v. State, supra; Jessup v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 409, 269 N.E.2d 374. V. Defendant finally contends that the action of the prosecutor in amending the original information to include the habitual off......
-
Hall v. State
...that the proof of a third prior conviction is mere surplusage under the requirements of the habitual offender statute. Jessup v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 409, 269 N.E.2d 374; Hanks v. State, (1948) 225 Ind. 593, 76 N.E.2d Defendant next contends that the doctrine of collateral estoppel is app......