Kleinrichert v. State, 3-572A2
Decision Date | 09 February 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 3-572A2,3-572A2 |
Citation | 292 N.E.2d 277 |
Parties | Jerome KLEINRICHERT, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Robert S. McCain, Fort Wayne, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty.Gen., David H. Kreider, Deputy Atty.Gen., for appellee.
STATEMENT ON THE APPEAL: Jerome Kleinrichert had been indicted for pandering. 1 He was tried by court, found guilty and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for a period of not less than one nor more than ten years and fined $1,000.00. This sentence was later reduced to three years on probation. Jerome Kleinrichert's Motion to Correct Errors presents four questions to be considered on appeal:
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it granted the State's oral and unverified motion for continuance on the day that the cause was set for trial?
2. Did the trial court commit reversible error when it failed to grant the Defendant's repeated request for the complete and unedited minutes of the grand jury?
3. Was there sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court's finding of guilty?
4. Did the trial court consider the indictment as evidence of guilt?
We find no errors after examining the above questions and affirm the trial court's judgment in our opinion which follows:
STATEMENT OF FACTS: It was Halloween. It was about 5:00 o'clock P.M. when the bus pulled into the station at Fort Wayne, Indiana and Inez Bonner arrived to meet Jerome Kleinrichert. He had promised to fix her up so that she could turn some tricks. Inez Bonner was a prostitute. After failing to locate Jerome Kleinrichert at the bus station, she took a cab over to the Travelodge and registered. Around 7:30 or 8:00 o'clock P.M. that evening she met Jerome Kleinrichert at the Cat's Meow, a local night club managed by Jerome Kleinrichert. Their arrangement was that she would turn over all the money that she received from her acts of prostitution to him, and he would provide her with a car, apartment and other incidentals. She was introduced to five men that evening who were taken to her room at the Travelodge. By the early hours of the following morning, November 1, 1969, she had collected One Hundred and Twenty-Five Dollars ($125.00) which she turned over to Jerome Kleinrichert.
The Allen County Grand Jury returned an indictment for pandering against Jerome Kleinrichert on March 3, 1970. He waived arraignment and pleaded not guilty. His trial was set for December 9, 1970, but the prosecuting attorney made an oral motion STATEMENT ON THE ISSUES: The four issues raised by Jerome Kleinrichert's Motion to Correct Errors are expressed as follows:
for a continuance. The State's principal witness against Jerome Kleinrichert had failed to appear. On March 30, 1970, Inez Bonner did appear for the State and Jerome Kleinrichert was found guilty of pandering by the trial court. He filed his motion to correct errors which raised the issues set forth below.
The unequivocal expression of error quoted above from Jerome Kleinrichert's Brief relies upon the interpretation of two statutes and the application of Criminal Rule 4(D). We will first discuss the interpretation of the statutes and then the application of the rule.
Inez Bonner had received a subpoena ad testificandum as a State's witness. She was the State's sole witness against Jerome Kleinrichert. A letter sent to her prior to trial had apparently been returned unopened to the prosecutor's office. On the day of the trial, December 9, 1970, she failed to appear. The prosecuting attorney moved orally for a continuance which was granted by the trial court. Jerome Kleinrichert contends that the statutes require the prosecutor to file an affidavit stating whether certain conditions exist. He further contends that no oral motion can be made or considered by the trial court. He urges that the statutory requirement for a written affidavit is mandatory. His argument strongly suggests that all the vestiges of discretion which might otherwise be exercised by the trial judge in the absence of such a written affidavit by the prosecutor is non-existent. The statutes under consideration are: I.C. 1971, 35-1-26-1; Ind.Stat.Ann. § 9-1401 (Burns 1956) and I.C.1971, 35-1-26-2; Ind.Stat.Ann. § 9-1402 (Burns 1956) which read as follows:
(Our emphasis)
The above statute clearly contemplates that the prosecutor's "... official statement ..." may be oral; however, the "... defendant may require the same to be in writing...." Criminal Rule 4(A) now provides that if the prosecutor does not make such statement ".. not later than ten days...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sacks v. State
...attorney to obtain a continuance on the morning of trial by an oral motion due to the absence of a material witness. The decision in Kleinrichert is of no benefit to Sacks because it was based on a separate statute by which prosecuting attorneys may obtain continuances on oral motions. 11 J......
-
State Farm Ins. Companies v. Flynn
...heard and considered. Court now finds in favor of the Defendant. Costs to Plaintiff. LNT: Parties. (R. 9). Citing to Kleinrichert v. State (1973), Ind.App., 292 N.E.2d 277, , reversed on other grounds, 260 Ind. 537, 297 N.E.2d 822, State Farm argues the court's judgment for the Defendants "......
-
Kleinrichert v. State, 673S128
...Dollars ($1,000.00). The conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third District on February 9, 1973. Kleinrichert v. State (1973), Ind.App., 292 N.E.2d 277. Petitioner specifies the following as (1) The trial court erred in granting the prosecuting attorney's oral motion for......