Layton v. State

Decision Date28 December 1966
Docket NumberNo. 30228,30228
PartiesMichael Walton LAYTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

James G. Strawbridge, Joseph F. Quill, Indianapolis, for appellant.

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Edgar S. Husted, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

JACKSON, Judge.

Appellant was charged by indictment in two counts; with (1) the premeditated murder of one Orvil Lee Gambrel, and (2) with the murder of Orvil Lee Gambrel while engaged in the perpetration of a robbery.

Appellant entered a plea of not guilty to both counts of the indictment, the cause was thereafter tried by jury, and appellant was found guilty on both counts and sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for life on each count. Thereafter, on November 15, 1961, the court entered judgment on the verdict sentencing appellant to the Indiana State Prison for life on each count and recommending that the two life sentences be served consecutively and not concurrently.

On November 23, 1961, appellant filed his motion for a new trial in said cause. Such motion in pertinent part alleged the two following grounds:

'1. That the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence.

'2. That the verdict of the jury is contrary to law.'

Appellant's assignment of errors is the single ground:

'1. The court erred in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.'

Appellant claims error was committed by allowing the introduction in evidence of offenses other than those with which he was charged and convicted. Two witnesses testified that they had accompanied and assisted appellant in several robberies of service stations and a church. The state contends the evidence was competent as showing a common scheme or plan because the offenses testified to occurred within a two month period preceding the murder charges, because the offenses were committed while armed and because all but one of the offenses involved service stations of the same company.

This court has previously held:

'The general rule is that one crime cannot be proved in order to establish another distinct crime even though they be of the same kind. Such evidence is highly prejudicial. Moreover, a defendant is entitled to be informed specifically of the crimes charged and not come to trial in the dark and uninformed as to the nature of the evidence to be presented against him. 1 Ewbank's Indiana Criminal Law, Symmes Ed., § 384, p. 236; Hergenrother v. State, 1939, 215 Ind. 89, 18 N.E.2d 874; Sylvester v. State, 1933, 205 Ind. 628, 187 N.E. 699; Fehlman v. State, 1928, 199 Ind. 746, 161 N.E. 8. There are certain exceptions to this general rule. Among these are cases where a crime has certain peculiar characteristics connected with its commission so that it very reasonably identifies the person involved in the commission. Where, for example, a particular type of break-in is involved, or a particular tool used that is identifiable in each case, or where the person involved wears a particular identifying piece of clothing or headgear.' Loveless v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 534, 539, 166 N.E.2d 864, 866.

The case at bar does not fit into any of the exceptions. There is no peculiar characteristic common to each of the offenses. The most the evidence of the prior offenses tends to show is that the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
25 cases
  • Tarkington v. State, 5494
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • June 21, 1971
    ...40; State v. Sorenson, 270 Minn. 186, 134 N.W.2d 115 (1965); State v. Stevens, 26 Wis.2d 451, 132 N.W.2d 502 (1965); Layton v. State, 248 Ind. 52, 221 N.E.2d 881 (1966); State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E.2d 364 (1954). See also, State v. Stephenson, 191 Kan. 424, 381 P.2d 335 (1963); S......
  • Payne v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 11, 1976
    ...one crime cannot be proved to establish another distinct crime. Sumpter v. State (1974), 261 Ind. 471, 306 N.E.2d 95; Layton v. State (1966), 248 Ind. 52, 221 N.E.2d 881. In the present case, the particular crime with which Payne was charged was possession of marijuana in LaPorte County, In......
  • Stacks v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 22, 1978
    ...be used to prove the offense for which he is on trial; such evidence is highly prejudicial and therefore inadmissible. Layton v. State (1966), 248 Ind. 52, 221 N.E.2d 881; Loveless v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 534, 166 N.E.2d 864; Brooks v. State (1973), 156 Ind.App. 414, 296 N.E.2d 894. One o......
  • Maldonado v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • October 20, 1976
    ...charged, is generally inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused. Cobbs v. State, (1975) Ind., 338 N.E.2d 632; Layton v. State, (1966) 248 Ind. 52, 221 N.E.2d 881. Evidence which is otherwise competent and relevant and which tends to prove or disprove a fact in issue is not inadmissible......
  • 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