King v. State

Decision Date22 May 1973
Docket NumberNo. 1171S345,1171S345
Citation296 N.E.2d 113,260 Ind. 422
PartiesAlbert Boyle KING, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender of Indiana, Malcolm K. McClintick, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant. Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, John McArdle, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

GIVAN, Justice.

Appellant was charged by indictment in the Allen Circuit Court with the crime of first degree murder. Upon motion of the appellant, venue was changed to the Kosciusko Circuit Court. Trial by jury resulted in a verdict of guilty as charged. Appellant was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison during life.

The record in this case was first filed with the Clerk of this Court on March 8, 1971. However, no brief was filed within the thirty days allowed under the Rules of this Court. A brief was tendered for filing on the thirty-first day. On November 30, 1971, this Court granted the appellant permission to file a belated appeal and appointed the State Public Defender as counsel for the petitioner, who re-filed the record in this case on February 28, 1972. Final briefing in the case was accomplished December 6, 1972.

The record reveals the following evidence:

On November 28, 1969, appellant was visiting James Pollard in Pollard's apartment next to the JLT Liquor Store in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Shortly after 1:00 P.M., appellant told Pollard that there was someone in the JLT parking lot he wanted to see, whereupon the left Pollard's apartment. State's witness Mary Sallie McGraw, whose apartment was above Pollard's apartment, saw the appellant step from Pollard's porch and start toward the liquor store. After a few steps, he stopped, pulled a pistol from his hip pocket and shot the decedent as he was returning to his car from the liquor store. Up to the time of the shooting, neither the deceased nor the appellant spoke to each other, nor did the deceased have anything in his hands. After appellant had fired the shot, he placed the pistol back in his pocket and said, 'You black son-of-a-bitch, you.' Appellant then attempted to return to Pollard's apartment, saying, 'I got the son-of-a-bitch.' However, Pollard refused to allow appellant to re-enter his apartment; whereupon, appellant drove away in his own car.

When police arrived, the deceased was dead. Police found no weapon on or near decedent's body. An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be hemorrhaging caused by a bullet which traveled through both arms and the chest of the deceased. There were powder burns on the right sleeve of decedent's jacket at the point of entry of the bullet.

At the time of his arrest, appellant told police officers that Jimmy King had 'been messing with me a long time.'

A week before the shooting, appellant had visited the deceased's wife and told her that her husband was going with appellant's wife; that he would not stand for it; and that he was going to kill his wife and Jimmy King, the decedent.

Appellant testified in his own behalf stating that Jimmy King had taunted him about his wife and, several times, had threatened to kill him. Appellant testified that immediately before the shooting, he saw his brother-in-law in the parking lot and went out to collect a debt that was owed him. He stated that while he was in the parking lot Jimmy King saw him, threatened him and that appellant shot King in self-defense when he reached into his pocket as if for a gun.

Appellant first claims the trial court erred in allowing the State to cross-examine and impeach its own witness James Pollard. Pollard at first testified that he clearly remembered the entire incident on the day of the shooting. In his initial testimony, Pollard omitted any statement by the appellant following the shooting, whereupon the State asked him if he recalled making a prior statement and asked him to re-read his statement to refresh his recollection. This was done over the objection of appellant. After re-reading his prior statement, Pollard then testified that after the shooting the appellant said, 'I got the son-of-a-bitch.' Appellant claims that allowing the State to proceed in this manner in questioning Pollard was in violation of IC 1971 34--1--14--15, Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann., 1968 Repl., § 2--1726, for the reason that Pollard had made no prior inconsistent statements. Appellant claims that prior inconsistent statements are a prerequisite to a cross-examination of one's own witness.

This situation with which the State was faced upon Pollard's initial testimony may fall within one of two categories. If the witness is, in fact, hostile to the State (a fact...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 cases
  • Norton v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • August 4, 1980
    ...the trial court's handling of the form of cross-examination. See Rogers v. State, (1974) 262 Ind. 315, 315 N.E.2d 707; King v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 422, 296 N.E.2d 113. XVII. Norton asserts the trial court allowed the State to present improper rebuttal Our search of the record reveals tha......
  • Snyder v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • August 30, 1979
    ...abuse of discretion the record must reveal that the appellant was prejudiced by the failure to grant the continuance. King v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 422, 296 N.E.2d 113; Souerdike v. State (1951), 230 Ind. 192, 102 N.E.2d 367. Snyder has not set forth in his brief any assertion of how his d......
  • Owensby v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • September 4, 1984
    ...444 U.S. 944, 100 S.Ct. 302, 62 L.Ed.2d 312; Miller v. State, (1978) 267 Ind. 635, 372 N.E.2d 1168. This Court held in King v. State, (1973) 260 Ind. 422, 296 N.E.2d 113, mere surprise is not reason enough to necessitate a continuance; the defendant must show he was harmed by the denial bec......
  • Harrison v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 20, 1975 convince us that no abuse of discretion has been demonstrated. See Ind.Ann.Stat. 35--1--26--1 (Burns Code Ed. 1975); King v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 422, 296 N.E.2d 113. II. COURT BELOW DID NOT ERR IN FINDING THAT HARRISON WAS NOT DENIED EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF TRIAL The court below found......
  • 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