Madison v. State

• Decision Date: 03 May 1971
• Docket Number: No. 870S188,870S188
• Citation: 269 N.E.2d 164,25 Ind.Dec. 389,256 Ind. 353
• Parties: Melba Dean MADISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 164

269 N.E.2d 164

256 Ind. 353

Melba Dean MADISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 870S188.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 3, 1971.

John D. Clouse, Evansville, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Robert J. Hayes, Pros. Atty., for appellee.

HUNTER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction of voluntary manslaughter. Appellant was charged by indictment with the crime of second degree murder and the cause was tried before a jury in the Vanderburgh Circuit Court. The verdict of the jury found the appellant guilty of the lesser included offense of voluntary manslaughter and a sentence of from not less than two (2) nor more than twenty-one (21) years in the Indiana Women's Prison was imposed. A motion to correct errors was filed in due course and was overruled. Certain portions of that motion are argued here and shall be considered in the order presented by appellant.

The first allegation of error encompasses two procedural attempts of appellant to challenge the legal propriety of the grand jury indictment. More specifically error is claimed in the trial court's overruling of appellant's motion to dismiss the indictment before trial and her motion in arrest of judgment after trial. As acknowledged by appellant, the legal argument presented by both motions is substantially the same. They therefore will be considered together.

The thrust of the motions was an allegation that the grand jury which brought the indictment was so biased as to prevent it as a matter of law from bringing a proper charge against appellant. Basis of this position is the fact that appellant is caucasian and a member of the grand jury was a negro. This was prejudicial appellant insists because it must be assumed that witnesses appearing before the grand jury testified that in explaining how the crime had occurred appellant had, in language highly vituperative and derisive of the negro race, described the killer of her husband as a negro.

Appellant cites the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1 Sections 12 and 13 of the Indiana Constitution as guaranteeing her a fair trial and general due process of law. Without discussing in detail why an accused is indeed guaranteed a proper criminal proceeding we will concede the point as indeed we must. We find it unnecessary, however, to rule upon the validity of the grand jury presentment.

The question here is one of whether appellant has presented any indication she has been denied an adequate criminal procedure. Appellant does not inform us how she has been prejudiced by the proceedings of the grand jury body. It is not alleged in what manner the negro grand juror was prejudiced to such a degree as to render the indictment abhorrent to the fundamental concept of fair and proper justice permeating the criminal justice system. An indictment may be brought by a yea vote of five of the six members of a grand jury. Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--901 (1956 Repl.), I.C.1971, 35--1--16--1. Thus, absent undue influence by the negro member of the grand jury over the others, a proper indictment could be brought even without his vote. Improper influence by the negro member over the others is not alleged. It is not even alleged that he voted for the indictment or that if he did so he voted solely out of prejudice and without regard for the facts as presented to the body of which he was a member.

Neither by her motion to dismiss nor her motion in arrest of judgment did appellant specify any act or sign that indicated the grand juror in question was bent upon persecuting appellant in violation of any applicable constitutional guarantees. The only complaint aired was that appellant is caucasian, the juror is negro and witnesses must have testified that appellant had used 'extremely profane and uncomplimentary adjectives to describe' the deceased's assailant. The mere fact that this, we will assume, was the case does not support a bare assertion of prejudice. We take judicial notice of the fact that the juror, as are all grand jurors, was sworn to '* * * present no person through malice, hatred or ill-will, * * *.' Ind.Ann.Stat. § 9--807 (1956 Repl.), I.C.1971, 35--1--15--7, and we will require more than unsupported claims that prejudice exists to find a violation of that oath.

Appellant alleges that she was at the least entitled to a hearing on her respective motions. But, as they were defective as a matter of law in their failure to indicate specific fraud or corruption or demonstrable prejudice, Weer v. State (1941), 219 Ind. 217, 36 N.E.2d 787 reh. den.219 Ind. 217, 37 N.E.2d 537; Cooper v. State (1889), 120 Ind. 377, 22 N.E. 320, failure to grant a hearing was clearly within the judicial discretion of the trial court, so long as the court ruled thereon.

Appellant next asserts error in the overruling of an objection to the following question directed to the state's witness Jasper L. Marshall:

'Q. I will ask whether or not you had any information from any sources of your investigation whatsoever that there was a negro involved, other than from the defendant?

A. No, sir.'

The objection was based on the alleged hearsay and conclusionary nature of the answer called for.

Hearsay may be defined as an out of court statement repeated in court to establish the truth of the matter contained therein. 5 Wigmore (McNaughton Rev.), § 1361.

No out-of-court statement was repeated or sought. The witness was asked the results of his investigation. This he knew of his own knowledge and his answer was offered to show what his knowledge was.

The objection that a conclusion was called for is likewise ill-founded. The question called for a statement of whether or not the witness's investigation revealed the existence of a fact and not whether the fact was true or false. Relating what he knew without stating that there was or was not definitely or even possibly a negro involved does not in the view of this court constitute the rendering of a conclusion.

Appellant's next assignment of error challenges the propriety of the trial court's overruling of an objection to another question. This question was also directed to policeman Marshall by the state, this time on re-direct examination. The colloquy went as follows:

'Q. What type of description was given to you by the defendant of this subject?

Mr. Clouse: Again the defendant objects for the reason it is not proper redirect examination, not having been gone into on cross-examination.

COURT: Overruled.

A. She said it was a tall subject, she didn't get a good look at him, only at his back going out of the door.'

The scope and intensity of redirect examination are matters within the validly exercised discretion of the trial court. Shipman v. State (1962), 243 Ind. 245, 183 N.E.2d 823, cert. den. 371 U.S. 958, 83 S.Ct. 515, 9 L.Ed.2d 504. Appellant does not argue an abuse of discretion by the trial court.

Appellant does argue that redirect examination is generally confined to the scope of cross-examination. Such was the case here. On cross-examination appellant's counsel questioned the officer about the version of the slaying appellant gave the police. Included was a review of the alleged existence of the negro man and the efforts undertaken to locate him. This we find opened the matter of the description of the man and there was no error in the trial court's ruling.

Appellant's next allegation of error again involves the trial court's failure to sustain objections to a series of questions.

The queries were directed to witness Gene Martin who was called by the state.

The exchange went as follows:

'Q. Do you have with you in particular the arrest and conviction record of Walter Thomas Madison?

Mr. Kiely: If the court please, there is no issue of the character of the decedent in this trial; there is no evidence of self-defense, there is no evidence other than he was eating at the time. We think it is strictly outside the scope.

Mr. Clouse: It is offered for the purpose of showing the quarrelsome nature of the defendant; that he got in fights and was convicted, and that he made many enemies; there were many people who had reason for wanting to do him in, it is offered for that purpose, your honor.

COURT: Objection sustained.

Mr. Clouse: The defendant offers to prove and if the witness were permitted to testify, his answer would be yes.'

and later

'Q. Officer, Martin, I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification, defendant's exhibits 1 through 10, inclusive, can you tell me what they are without stating what is on them, just tell me generally what they are?

Mr. Kiely: We renew our objection. This is completely outside the issues here, there is no evidence of self-defense.

COURT: I will sustain the objection.

Mr. Clouse: The defendant offers to prove that if the witness were permitted to testify he would testify that the defendant's exhibits 1 through 10, inclusive, were the criminal record of the deceased, Walter Thomas Madison.'

and still later,

'Q. Officer, again I will hand you what has been marked for the purpose of identification, defendant's exhibits 1 through 10, can you tell me if these are true copies of official records of which you have the custody?

Mr. Kiely: Again I am going to object, unless there is some bearing on this case.

COURT: You may answer the question, yes or no. Objection overruled.

A. Yes.

Mr. Clouse: Defendant offers to introduce in evidence defendant's exhibits 1 through 10, inclusive.

COURT: Do you want to renew your objection?

Mr. Kiely: Yes, your Honor, I would like to renew my objection heretofore made.

COURT: OBJECTION SUSTAINED.'

Appellant argues the information sought to be introduced tended to show the quarrelsome nature of the deceased, that there may have been enemies with a motive to kill him. Based upon the record as a whole it is indeed apparent that someone may have wished to end his life. The...