Jones v. State, No. 476S102

Docket NºNo. 476S102
Citation363 N.E.2d 959, 266 Ind. 349
Case DateJune 10, 1977
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 959

363 N.E.2d 959
266 Ind. 349
Jerry Ray JONES, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 476S102.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 10, 1977.

[266 Ind. 350] Malcolm G. Montgomery, Stephen C. Haas, Evansville, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Arthur Thaddeus Perry, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was indicted for the first-degree murder of Elmer Rice in Evansville, Indiana. Venue was changed from Vanderburgh County to Warrick County after which the appellant entered a plea of guilty to the lesser included offense of second-degree murder. Subsequently, appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 15 to 25 years.

Two years later, on June 15, 1973, appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief. This petition was granted and he was ordered returned to the Warrick Circuit Court for further proceedings. After several delays, trial was begun on October 7, 1974. Appellant was found guilty by a jury and was sentenced to 15 to 25 years' imprisonment.

The record presents the following facts: On December 4, 1970, appellant came to the Cook residence in Evansville, Indiana, and told friends that he had just obtained a radio and a fifth of wine from a drunk. He then left and later returned with another radio, saying he had obtained it from the same drunk. He claimed the same drunk had a $98.00 check and offered half of it to Howard Lee, a friend of the appellant. Lee declined the offer.

At appellant's request, Lee showed the appellant where a bayonet was in the Cook house. Appellant took the bayonet [266 Ind. 351] and left. He returned later saying that he had stabbed a man and killed him and that the man would not tell him where the money was. Lee took the bayonet from appellant, wiped it off and returned it to its place.

Page 960

Lee and the appellant then returned to the apartment indicated by the appellant, where they found a man lying on the floor who was later determined dead by reason of a stab wound. Lee then required the appellant to notify the police and accompany the police to the apartment where he told of seeing a person running from the apartment shortly before he discovered the dead man.

Appellant first argues that the trial court erred in overruling his motion to dismiss. He argued for dismissal on two grounds: (1) that he was subject to double jeopardy and (2) that the trial court did not obtain jurisdiction over him because of an improper waiver hearing from juvenile court.

Appellant was 17 years old at the time of the offense in question. A petition to declare the appellant a delinquent juvenile was filed in the Vanderburgh...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 practice notes
  • Porter v. State, No. 177S14
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 3, 1979
    ...It is therefore a proper subject of jury instruction. See Ind.Code (Burns 1979) § 35-5-5-1 35-5-5-5. See also Jones v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 349, 352-53, 363 N.E.2d 959, Appellant claims that the last paragraph of instruction number 11 leads the jury to infer that all people who give volun......
  • Lindley v. State, No. 1276S464
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 22, 1978
    ...court. Jurisdiction under such circumstances is not placed in the juvenile court, but in criminal court. Jones v. State, (1977) Ind., 363 N.E.2d 959; Lockridge v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 678, 338 N.E.2d 275. The case at bar is within the statutory exception of a charge of first degree murder......
  • Grassmyer v. State, No. 1081S309
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 28, 1981
    ...It is therefore a proper subject of jury instruction. See Ind.Code (Burns 1975) §§ 35-5-5-1-35-5-5-5. See also Jones v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 349, 352-353, 363 N.E.2d 959, 960." (Emphasis added.) Id. at We did address the issue of the propriety of a trial judge's advising the jury of his d......
  • Long v. State, No. 1180S409
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 26, 1981
    ...instruction is a correct statement of the law and was correctly given. Battle v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 39; Jones v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 349, 363 N.E.2d Defendant's refused instruction dealt with the burden of proof the state must meet in establishing that a confession was volunt......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 cases
  • Porter v. State, No. 177S14
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 3, 1979
    ...It is therefore a proper subject of jury instruction. See Ind.Code (Burns 1979) § 35-5-5-1 35-5-5-5. See also Jones v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 349, 352-53, 363 N.E.2d 959, Appellant claims that the last paragraph of instruction number 11 leads the jury to infer that all people who give volun......
  • Lindley v. State, No. 1276S464
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 22, 1978
    ...court. Jurisdiction under such circumstances is not placed in the juvenile court, but in criminal court. Jones v. State, (1977) Ind., 363 N.E.2d 959; Lockridge v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 678, 338 N.E.2d 275. The case at bar is within the statutory exception of a charge of first degree murder......
  • Grassmyer v. State, No. 1081S309
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 28, 1981
    ...It is therefore a proper subject of jury instruction. See Ind.Code (Burns 1975) §§ 35-5-5-1-35-5-5-5. See also Jones v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 349, 352-353, 363 N.E.2d 959, 960." (Emphasis added.) Id. at We did address the issue of the propriety of a trial judge's advising the jury of his d......
  • Long v. State, No. 1180S409
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 26, 1981
    ...instruction is a correct statement of the law and was correctly given. Battle v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 39; Jones v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 349, 363 N.E.2d Defendant's refused instruction dealt with the burden of proof the state must meet in establishing that a confession was volunt......
  • 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