Maciejack v. State
Decision Date | 16 May 1980 |
Docket Number | No. 580S137,580S137 |
Citation | 273 Ind. 408,404 N.E.2d 7 |
Parties | Emma Jean Childers MACIEJACK and Roy Tolson, Appellants (Defendants Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
William G. Conover, Phillip B. Chew, Conover, Claudon & Chew, Valparaiso, for appellants.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Lesly A. Bowers, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
ON PETITION TO TRANSFER
This cause is before us upon the petition to transfer filed by the defendants (appellants), following an adverse decision of the Court of Appeals, Third District. The opinion of that Court, authored by Judge Garrard, together with a dissenting opinion by Judge Staton, may be found at 393 N.E.2d 272 (Ind.App.).
Transfer is granted by reason of the failure of the Court of Appeals to give an opinion in writing upon a substantial issue presented by the defendants, which is identified here as Issue V. Accordingly, the decision and opinion of the Court of Appeals are hereby vacated, and the defendants' petition to transfer is hereby granted. We, nevertheless, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Appellants were convicted in a trial by jury of arson and arson with intent to defraud. They were sentenced to imprisonment for terms of not less than five (5) nor more than twenty (20) years. This direct appeal presents five issues:
(1) Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain the verdicts.
(2) Whether the defendants were denied a fair trial by the trial prosecutor's repetitive use of leading questions.
(3) Whether the trial court erred in overruling the defendants' motion for consideration of suspended sentences.
(4) Whether the trial court erred in admitting physical evidence and testimony resulting from searches by an insurance company investigator, all over the defendants' objections premised upon police involvement in the searches.
(5) Whether the trial court erred in admitting, over defendants' objections, testimony of an arson investigator from the office of the State Fire Marshall concerning his observations of the burned premises during a warrantless search by him made sixteen days following the fire.
Upon these issues, we adopt the opinion as written by Judge Garrard, as follows:
ISSUE IV
The fire at Emma Maciejack's home occurred on March 17, 1974. David Kramer, the insurance company investigator, arrived in North Judson, Indiana to conduct his investigation of the fire ten days later, March 27, 1974. He immediately visited the North Judson Fire Chief, Jerry Fingerhut, to gather information regarding the fire which occurred on March 17, 1974. Later, he went across the street to talk to police officer Combs of the North Judson Police Department. After his conversation with police officer Combs, he and his assistant, Mr. Ranker, left with police officer Combs for 501 North Main Street, the address of Emma Maciejack's fire-damaged home.
When they arrived at the remains of the Maciejack house, at 501 North Main Street, police officer Combs assisted Kramer in his investigation by showing where he had found the gas cans after the fire, which as previously...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. St. Vincent Hospital, Inc.
... ... Physicians, Inc., Stephen Watson, Robert A ... Blackburn, and H. Pete Hudson, ... Commissioner of Insurance of ... the State of ... Appellees ... Sharon S. BOVA and Joseph A. Bova, Husband and Wife, Appellants, ... Chester KMAK, M. D., Robert Goldstone, M. D., and ... ...
-
Powers v. State
...information in the search warrant affidavit was the product or fruit of illegal police activity lay with Appellant. See Maciejack v. State, (1980) Ind., 404 N.E.2d 7. From the evidence presented at the hearing, the trial court properly overruled the motion to suppress all evidence seized at......
-
Sloane v. State
...representatives of fire and police departments, the insurance company investigator clearly initiated the search. See Maciejack v. State, 273 Ind. 408, 404 N.E.2d 7 (1980). Mr. Sumpter was hired to investigate the fires by the insurance company that insured Appellant's residence. Mr. Sumpter......
-
Purcell v. State
...fruit may be used for impeachment purposes was recently answered in the affirmative by the Indiana Supreme Court in Maciejack v. State (1980), Ind., 404 N.E.2d 7: "Evidence, though illegally obtained, may nevertheless be used for impeachment purposes. Walder v. United States, (1954) 347 U.S......