Mahoney v. State, No. 30333
| Docket Nº | No. 30333 |
| Citation | 245 Ind. 581, 3 Ind.Dec. 750, 201 N.E.2d 271 |
| Case Date | September 24, 1964 |
Page 271
v.
STATE of Indiana dnd Donald E. Wright, Appellees.
[245 IND 581] John M. Heeter, Indianapolis, for appellants.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., David S. [245 IND 582] Wedding, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
MYERS, Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Marion Criminal Court, Division One, of Marion County, Indiana, dated August 9, 1962, wherein appellants were convicted of the crime of robbery. On their plea of not guilty, a trial was held before a jury which returned a verdict against them finding them guilty as charged in the indictment. (A directed verdict of not guilty for the appellants' co-defendant, Donald E. Wright, named as a party appellee herein,
Page 272
pursuant to the Court's Instruction No. 21, was returned by the jury.) Appellants were sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for a period of not less than ten years nor more than twenty-five years and disfranchised during prison years. A motion for new trial was filed which was overruled. This appeal followed. The assignment of errors is based upon the ground that the court erred in overruling the motion for new trial.The motion for new trial sets forth three specifications of error: (1) An error of law occurring at the trial; (2) that the verdict of the jury is contrary to law; (3) that the verdict of the jury is not sustained by sufficient evidence. Specifications 2 and 3 are expressly waived by appellants and so present no question. Therefore, we shall consider only specification numbered one as argued by appellants in their brief. This reads as follows:
'1. Error of law occurring at the trial, in this, that the Court overruled the defendants' motion, made at the conclusion of the testimony of Walter Earl Barlow, a witness for the State during the State's presentation of its case-in-chief, said witness having testified on direct examination that he was robbed by these two defendants, on cross-[245 IND 583] examination that he did not testify before the Grand Jury, nor at any time prior to trial while under oath, and on re-direct examination that he had testified in the courthouse before a reporter and some people sitting around a table, the said motion being, in substance, that, in view of the witness's testimony at the trial, the Court order the State to produce a transcript of said witness's testimony before the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blackburn v. State, No. 370S43
...examination of Grand Jury minutes. Dinning v. State (1971), Ind., 269 N.E.2d 371 rehearing denied; Mahoney Page 691 v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271. The deliberations of the Grand Jury are intended to be kept secret. IC 1971, 35--1--15--16 (Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. § 9--816 (1956 ......
-
Antrobus v. State, No. 169S6
...case adhering to the rule of non-disclosure of such statements and the reasoning there was recently adopted in Mahoney v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271. Several reasons were offered to support the rule of non-disclosure but the only one which carries any weight at all is that t......
-
DeVaney v. State, No. 671S192
...this does not preclude the defendant from calling a grand juror as a witness; see Dinning v. State, supra; Mahoney v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271. It is also true that a grand jury indictment returned in open court and duly endorsed by the foreman is evidence that a sufficien......
-
Hinojosa v. State, No. 45S05-0111-CR-590
...Ind. 5, 291 N.E.2d 686 (1973), cert. denied, Blackburn v. Indiana, 412 U.S. 925, 93 S.Ct. 2755, 37 L.Ed.2d 152 (1973); Mahoney v. State, 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271 (1964), overruled on other grounds by Antrobus v. State, 253 Ind. 420, 254 N.E.2d 873 (Ind.1970). In fact, it is a criminal o......
-
Blackburn v. State, No. 370S43
...examination of Grand Jury minutes. Dinning v. State (1971), Ind., 269 N.E.2d 371 rehearing denied; Mahoney Page 691 v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271. The deliberations of the Grand Jury are intended to be kept secret. IC 1971, 35--1--15--16 (Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. § 9--816 (1956 ......
-
Antrobus v. State, No. 169S6
...case adhering to the rule of non-disclosure of such statements and the reasoning there was recently adopted in Mahoney v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271. Several reasons were offered to support the rule of non-disclosure but the only one which carries any weight at all is that t......
-
DeVaney v. State, No. 671S192
...this does not preclude the defendant from calling a grand juror as a witness; see Dinning v. State, supra; Mahoney v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271. It is also true that a grand jury indictment returned in open court and duly endorsed by the foreman is evidence that a sufficien......
-
Hinojosa v. State, No. 45S05-0111-CR-590
...Ind. 5, 291 N.E.2d 686 (1973), cert. denied, Blackburn v. Indiana, 412 U.S. 925, 93 S.Ct. 2755, 37 L.Ed.2d 152 (1973); Mahoney v. State, 245 Ind. 581, 201 N.E.2d 271 (1964), overruled on other grounds by Antrobus v. State, 253 Ind. 420, 254 N.E.2d 873 (Ind.1970). In fact, it is a criminal o......