Keyser v. State, 3--673A68
Decision Date | 27 June 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 3--673A68,3--673A68 |
Citation | 160 Ind.App. 566,312 N.E.2d 922 |
Parties | Wayne E. KEYSER, Defendant-Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Patrick Brennan and Michael P. Scopelitis, Patrick Brennan and Associates, South Bend, for defendant-appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Dwyer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.
Appellant Wayne E. Keyser (Keyser) was charged by indictment with first degree murder following a shooting at his home. Trial was held before a jury which found Keyser guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter. Judgment was entered on the verdict and Keyser was committed to the custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for a period of not less than two nor more than 21 years. Keyser's timely motion to correct errors was subsequently overruled, and this appeal followed.
The only issue to be considered on appeal is whether the defendant received a fair and impartial trial.
During the direct examination by the prosecutor of the only witness who testified to the State's version of the shooting, the following occurred:
The trial court sustained the objection after hearing the arguments of counsel and taking a recess to research the matter.
After eliciting testimony from the witness that he had made a statement inconsistent with his version of the shooting given during the trial, the prosecutor then initiated the following exchange:
'A. $3,000.
United States v. Graham (2d Cir. 1939), 102 F.2d 436, at 442--443. See also: Adler et al. v. State (1967), 248 Ind. 193, 225 N.E.2d 171.
The jury should have before it all facts and circumstances affecting the credibility of the witnesses it hears. Alder et al. v. State, supra.
However, the desirability of so informing the jury in a criminal case must be balanced against any prejudice to the defendant generated by such evidence. Since a criminal defendant is the primary individual who could benefit from the bribing or absence of a witness who might testify against him, the inference is strong that he has procured these acts when evidence of them is introduced at his trial. No evidence or testimony was presented, or attempted to be presented, to advise the jury of whether or not the defendant was involved in the attempt. No connection between the defendant and the attempted bribe and threat was remotely shown.
We think that in...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Myles
...defendant that no jury could be expected to apply it solely to the question of the credibility of the witness.” ( Keyser v. State (1974) 160 Ind.App. 566, 312 N.E.2d 922, 924.) Even were we to agree with the Keyser decision that the prejudice to the defendant in that matter could not be cur......
-
Clark v. Duckworth
...received a fair trial when a state's witness testified he was threatened against testifying by undisclosed persons. Keyser v. State (1974), 160 Ind.App. 566, 312 N.E.2d 922. The trial court had sustained objections and had stricken the answers, but the court had denied the mistrial motion. ......
-
Dudley v. Duckworth
...when no connection is shown between the defendant and the threats, can amount to an "evidential harpoon." Keyser v. State, 160 Ind.App. 566, 312 N.E.2d 922, 924 (1974); see also Cox v. State, 422 N.E.2d 357, 360-63 (Ind.App.1981). "[S]uch evidence becomes so prejudicial to a defendant that ......
-
Nagy v. Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corp.
... ... Approximately $1,500,000 of the 2002 deficit was the result of the State's failure to provide funds which had been anticipated, and the remainder of the deficit was the ... ...