Keyser v. State, No. 3--673A68

Docket NºNo. 3--673A68
Citation160 Ind.App. 566, 312 N.E.2d 922
Case DateJune 27, 1974
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 922

312 N.E.2d 922
160 Ind.App. 566
Wayne E. KEYSER, Defendant-Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Plaintiff-Appellee.
No. 3--673A68.
Court of Appeals of Indiana, Third District.
June 27, 1974.

[160 Ind.App. 567] Patrick Brennan and Michael P. Scopelitis, Patrick Brennan and Associates, South Bend, for defendant-appellant.

Page 923

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Dwyer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for plaintiff-appellee.

HOFFMAN, Chief Judge.

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:

'Q. Now, Mr. Guilford, with relation to your testimony here today, you have received certain threats, have you not?

'A. Yes, sir.

'Q. And can you tell the Court and Jury what threats you have received?

'A. Well about--

'MR. BRENNAN: Well, if the Court please, unless this Defendant is connected with any threats I would most respectfully object to it.

[160 Ind.App. 568] 'THE COURT: Mr. Bailiff take the Jury out.'

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:

'Q. Can you tell me, why did you make that change in your statement? Why did you say that Keyser swung the shotgun at you rather than the way you have testified here today?

'A. Because I was threatened. My life was threatened, and I was offered some money to which I could use the money to leave town.

'Q. So that you were offered money to make that statement different from the way it is today, is that correct?

'A. Yes, sir.

'Q. How much money were you offered?

'A. $3,000.

'MR. BRENNAN: If your Honor please, we object and move to have the answer stricken, and I think the Court has already ruled on that.

'THE COURT: The objection will be sustained. The answer of the Witness will be stricken. The Jury will be ordered to disregard the same.

'MR. BRENNAN: And I don't know if that would even, Your Honor, in this instance be possible to disregard...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • People v. Myles, No. S097189.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 26, 2012
    ...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......
  • People v. Myles, No. S097189.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 26, 2012
    ...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, Civ. No. S 89-270.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • August 12, 1991
    ...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. The court......
  • Dudley v. Duckworth, No. 86-2293
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • November 7, 1988
    ...has received 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 de......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • People v. Myles, No. S097189.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 26, 2012
    ...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......
  • People v. Myles, No. S097189.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 26, 2012
    ...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, Civ. No. S 89-270.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • August 12, 1991
    ...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. The court......
  • Dudley v. Duckworth, No. 86-2293
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • November 7, 1988
    ...has received 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 de......
  • 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