Kiefer v. State, 29871
| Decision Date | 01 November 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 29871,29871 |
| Citation | 241 Ind. 176,169 N.E.2d 723 |
| Parties | Richard E. KIEFER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Barrie C. Tremper, Tremper & Kenny, Ft. Wayne, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Richard M. Givan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Richard C. Johnson, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was indicted for murder of Pearl M. Kiefer, his wife, the charge being in the first degree. To this indictment appellant filed a special plea of not guilty by reason of insanity at the time the offense was alleged to have been committed. Upon trial by jury appellant was found guilty and sentenced to death.
The sole error assigned and argued as cause for reversal is the admission of appellant's confession into evidence without first deleting that portion by which he also confessed to having killed his daughter. It is appellant's contention that reversible error was committed by the trial court in admitting that part of the confession relating to the killing of his daughter when he was being tried for the murder of his wife.
In support of this position, appellant cites numerous authorities all stating the general rule to be as follows:
Cf: 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 820; Wharton's, Criminal Evidence, 11th Ed., § 771, p. 1211; Wigmore, § 218, p. 719.
We believe the above accurately states the law generally applicable to confessions. Basically the same rule applies generally to the admission of evidence of other and separate offenses. However, the instant case does not fall within the above stated rule for the reason that that portion of the confession which appellant contends to be immaterial was actually admissible as part of the res gestae. Evidence of another and distinct crime is admissible where it was committed as part of the same transaction, and the fact that the evidence is admitted by way of a confession does not change the application of the rule. The res gestae is not confined to the act charged, but includes acts, statements, occurrences contemporaneous with the main fact. I.L.E. conteemporaneous with the main fact. I.L.E. Criminal Law § 171; 22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 662; Starr v. State, 1903, 160 Ind. 661, 67 N.E. 527.
The killing of the child was simultaneous with the attack on his wife, being accomplished with the same weapons and occurring in the same geographical area. Under the exact same set of facts as the instant case, this court held that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Callis v. People
...People v. Oden, 20 Ill.2d 470, 170 N.E.2d 582 (1960); People v. Donaldson, 8 Ill.2d 510, 134 N.E.2d 776 (1956); Kiefer v. State, 241 Ind. 176, 169 N.E.2d 723 (1960); State v. Crisman, 244 Iowa 590, 57 N.W.2d 207 (1953); State v. Nagy, 27 N.J.Super. 1, 98 A.2d 613 (1953); People v. Chaffee, ......
-
Ballard v. State
...i.e., First Degree Burglary and Robbery. A wealth of Indiana case law supports the admissibility of such evidence. Kiefer v. State, (1960) 241 Ind. 176, 169 N.E.2d 723, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 914, 81 S.Ct. 1089, 6 L.Ed.2d 238; Anderson v. State, (1933) 205 Ind. 607, 186 N.E. 316; Eckert v. ......
-
Ballard v. State
...i.e., First Degree Burglary and Robbery. A wealth of Indiana case law supports the admissibility of such evidence. Kiefer v. State, (1960) 241 Ind. 176, 169 N.E.2d 723, cert. denied, 366 U.S. 914, 81 S.Ct. 1089, 6 L.Ed.2d 238; Anderson v. State, (1933) 205 Ind. 607, 186 N.E. 316; Eckert v. ......
-
Shipman v. State
...settled that when insanity is an issue, evidence of relevant conduct of the person charged with the crime is admissible. Kiefer v. State (1960) Ind., 169 N.E.2d 723; Kallas v. State (1949), 227 Ind. 103, 83 N.E.2d 769, Cert. Den. 336 U.S. 940, 69 S.Ct. 744, 93 L.Ed. Finally appellant urges ......