Koonce v. State
| Decision Date | 24 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1172S156,1172S156 |
| Citation | 323 N.E.2d 219,263 Ind. 5 |
| Parties | Nathan Raymond KOONCE, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Larry A. Landis, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Russell W. Sims, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Defendant has taken this Belated Appeal from his conviction by a jury for the crime of Second Degree Murder. The Defendant's wife was murdered November 14, 1969, in Hammond. Four persons testified that on the night of the murder the Defendant forced them at gunpoint to drive him to Henderson, Kentucky, and that during the trip the Defendant repeatedly said he had shot and killed his wife. Defendant was arrested at Henderson in his father's home. In the room where Defendant was found a .25 caliber pistol was recovered. A firearms expert testified that the bullet taken from the body of the Defendant's wife was fired from that gun.
The first issue which Defendant raises is the admissibility of a conversation he had with Hammond police officers wherein he admitted being in the presence of his wife at the time and place of the killing. We need not consider the constitutional question of whether or not the Defendant was properly advised of his Miranda rights. The conversation admitted into evidence did not contribute to the verdict. The introduction of evidence which is merely cumulative and not decisive of guilt is not prejudicial error. Mitchell v. State, (1972) Ind., 287 N.E.2d 860; Grimes v. State, (1972) Ind., 280 N.E.2d 575; Jackson v. State, (1971) Ind., 275 N.E.2d 538. Defendant's well-prepared argument on this point concludes as follows:
'A statement by the defendant that he was with the deceased at a time reasonably contemporaneous with the discovery of her body, that they were arguing, that she started to get out of the car, that he reached for her, and that was the last thing he could remember, certainly must have had a prejudicial impact on the minds of the jury and must have eliminated doubt as to the defendant's guilt.'
These admissions made in a statement to the police were undoubtedly prejudicial. However, the statement was merely cumulative evidence in view of the testimony of the four witnesses detailing defendant's admission of the murder to them while en route to Kentucky. Therefore, the state has met its burden of showing that the defendant was not prejudiced by the alleged error. Chapman v. California, (1967) 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705; Dickerson v. State, (1972) Ind., 276 N.E.2d 845; Harris v. State, (1968) 249 Ind. 681, 231 N.E.2d 800.
Defendant's other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Carter v. State
-
Hunter v. State, 1--976A168
...of the statement was merely cumulative in nature and this court will not reverse for admission of cumulative evidence. Koonce v. State (1975), Ind., 323 N.E.2d 219. Chatman v. State (1975), Ind., 334 N.E.2d The case of Brown v. State (1975), Ind., 338 N.E.2d 498, also sheds some light on th......
-
Works v. State
...such error, because the evidence that came into the record thereunder was not decisive of guilt but was merely cumulative. Koonce v. State (1975) Ind., 323 N.E.2d 219; Chatman v. State, (1975) Ind., 334 N.E.2d ISSUE VII The State's tendered instruction No. 8 was as follows: 'One of the elem......
-
State v. Gosselin
...407 U.S. 371, 92 S.Ct. 2174, 33 L.Ed.2d 4 (1972); Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Koonce v. State, 323 N.E.2d 219 (Ind.1975) ; see State v. Bell, 112 N.H. 444, 298 A.2d 753 (1972); State v. Underwood, 110 N.H. 413, 270 A.2d 599 IV. Sentencing Under R......