McGill v. State

Decision Date19 May 1969
Docket NumberNo. 767S52,767S52
Citation17 Ind.Dec. 504,252 Ind. 293,247 N.E.2d 514
PartiesJerome McGILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
Frank E. Spencer, Indianapolis, for appellant

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Robert F. Hassett, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.


Appellant and another, Robert Chandler, were charged by affidavit with the crime of Second Degree Burglary as defined by Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 4, p. 447, being Burns' Ind.Ann.Stat. § 10--701(b) (1956 Repl.), which reads in pertinent part as follows:

'(b) Whoever breaks and enters into any boat, wharf-boat, or other water-craft, interurban-car, street-car, railroad-car, automobile, airplane, or other air-craft, or any building or structure other than a dwelling-house or place of human habitation, with the intent to commit a felony therein, shall be guilty of burglary in the second degree, and upon conviction shall be imprisoned not less than two (2) years nor more than five (5) years and be disfranchised and rendered incapable of holding any office of trust or profit for any determine period: Provided, however, That the court shall have power to suspend prison sentence and place the defendant on probation in accordance with existing law.'

The affidavit charging appellant and his co-defendant with the alleged crime in pertinent part reads as follows:

'BE IT REMEMBERED, That, on this day before me, NOBLE R. PEARCY Prosecuting Attorney of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, personally came WILLIAM R. HASTINGS who, being duly sworn, upon his oath says that ROBERT CHANDLER and JEROME McGILL on or about the 1st day of November, A.D. 1966, at and in the County of Marion in the State of Indiana, did then and there unlawfully, feloniously and burglariously break and enter into the building and structure of ANTHONY WAYNE OIL CORPORATION, then and there situate at 201 NORTH CAPITOL AVENUE, City of Indianapolis, County of Marion, State of Indiana, which said building and structure was not a place of human habitation, with the intent to commit a felony therein, to-wit: to unlawfully and feloniously and knowingly obtain and exert unauthorized control over property of said ANTHONY WAYNE OIL CORPORATION and to deprive said ANTHONY WAYNE OIL CORPORATION permanently of the use and benefit of said property, then and there being contrary to the form of the statute in such case made and provided, and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.

/s/ William R. Hastings'

Appellant, on December 21, 1966, waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge embraced in the affidavit. Thereafter, on April 13, 1967, appellant and his co-defendant each waived trial by jury, consented to and were tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. At the conclusion of the State's evidence, defendants each and severally moved for a discharge. The motions were overruled as to each defendant. Whereupon appellant McGill rested. Defendant Chandler presented evidence in his behalf and rested. The State rested. The defendants each and severally moved for discharge. The court then entered a finding of Guilty as charged by the affidavit. Pre-sentence investigation was ordered and sentencing set for April 27, 1967 at 1:30 P.M.

Thereafter, on April 27, 1967, the court having examined the pre-sentence investigation report filed by the Probation Department and both defendants and their counsel and the State of Indiana by a deputy prosecutor being present, the court sentenced appellant, age 27, to the Indiana State Reformatory for no less than 2 yeaers nor more than 5 years, and costs. The co-defendant, age 31, who did not appeal, was sentenced to the Indiana State Prison for a like term.

Thereafter, on May 1, 1967, appellant filed his motion for a new trial. Such motion, with accompanying memorandum, omitting formal parts, reads in pertinent part as follows:


Comes now the defendant, Jerome McGill, and moves for a new trial in the above captioned case for the following reasons:

1. The decision of the Court is contrary to law;

2. The decision of the Court is not sustained by sufficient evidence;

3. Errors of law occurring at the trial.

WHEREFORE, the defendant, Jerome McGill, requests that a new trial be granted herein and for all other relief in the premises.

/s/ Philip R. Melangton, Jr.

Philip R. Melangton, Jr.

Attorney for defendant

Jerome McGill


The Court erred in admitting state's exhibit #2, a knife, over the defendant McGill's objection. Said knife, according to the testimony of the police officer, was found upon the defendant Chandler and was not connected with the defendant McGill.

The Court erred in overruling defendant's motion for discharge made at the close of the state's case and at the close of all the evidence for the following reasons:

The defendant Chandler was seen inside the structure but not the defendant McGill. The defendant McGill was seen only on the sidewalk and was seen doing nothing and was only an innocent bystander. Mere presence at the scene of a crime does not make the defendant an accomplice.

Police Officer Kerins did not identify which of the defendants was Jerome McGill but only identified the defendants collectively as Chandler and McGill.

Carl Bills, the attendant of the parking lot, testified that there was nothing of value in the structure and therefore nothing of value could have been taken.

The state failed to prove the ownership of the structure as set out in the affidavit inasmuch as the witness Bills testified that he did not know whether the Anthony Wayne Oil Company owned or leased the premises.

/s/ Philip R. Melangton, Jr.

Philip R. Melangton, Jr.

Attorney for Defendant

Jerome McGill'

Appellant's Motion for New Trial was overruled by the court on May 3, 1967.

Appellant's Assignment of Errors is the single specification:

'1. The Court erred in overruling Appellant's motion for new trial.'

Appellee in its brief, p. 1 under 'Introduction,' asserts that appellant has argued in his brief only causes (1) and (2) of his motion for new trial and has not argued cause (3) thereof, viz. 'errors of law occurring at the trial' and has waived on appeal cause (3). Rule 2--17. Appellant in his reply brief takes issue with the appellee's contention on that score and refers to 'the errors intended to be urged on appeal, (appellant's Brief, pp. 12, 13).' Appellant's brief pp. 12, 13 with reference to the controversy here mentioned reads as follows: 'The grounds of the motion for new trial intended to be urged herein, as set out hereinabove at p. 4 of this Brief, and in the Transcript of the Record at pp. 19, 11. 11 and 12, are that the decision of the Court is contrary to law, and that the decision of the Court is not sustained by sufficient evidence.' Accordingly, under Rule 2--17 appellant has waived the third cause of his motion for new trial by failure to argue it on appeal. Dombkowski v. State (1967), Ind., 230 N.E.2d 602.

From the evidence adduced at trial, it appears that on November 1, 1966, at about 2:37 A.M., Indianapolis police officer Louis Kerins observed appellant's co-defendant, Robert Chandler, inside a small building on a parking lot at 201 N. Capitol Avenue in Indianapolis. Kerins testified that at this same time appellant was standing in front and a little to the east of the building. He stated that as he approached the building he heard the appellant yell something that the witness couldn't make out. He then testified that Chandler turned and started out of the building, while appellant started running. Officer Kerins stated that he apprehended Chandler as Chandler was exiting through a window on the west side of the building, and that he then hollered for appellant to halt, which appellant did. Officer Kerins then placed appellant under arrest.

Testimony by the manager of the parking lot established that as late as 6:00 P.M. on the evening of October 31, 1966, the doors and windows of the building were all locked. He further testified that he did not authorize either appellant or Chandler to enter the building.

Appellant's co-defendant, Chandler, testified in his own behalf, that he was walking past the building at about 2:30 A.M. on November 1, 1966, while on his way home from a Halloween party. He stated that a man and his wife drove him from the party to the corner of Illinois and Ohio Streets in Indianapolis, and that he was walking home from there. He denied being in the building, and said that he found the pocket knife on the sidewalk in front of the building. The knife was identified as State's Ex. 2 and belonged to the lot manager, who testified that it was kept in a desk drawer in the building in which Chandler was seen. The witness further stated that he vaguely knew appellant, and that they spoke while passing each other on the sidewalk.

The appellant did not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Fox v. State, 2-376A109
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 30, 1979
    ...... See McGill v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 293, 247 N.E.2d 514. Such other circumstances were described by our Supreme Court in Cotton v. State (1965), 247 Ind. 56, ......
  • Dorton v. State, 380S62
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • May 6, 1981
    ...... Wright v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 327, 363 N.E.2d 1221; McGill v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 283, 247 N.E.2d 514. The evidence as set out above showing that Munde knowingly aided three other men to choose, arrive ......
  • Hoskins v. State, 281S32
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 4, 1982
    ...... Wright v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 327, 363 N.E.2d 1221; McGill v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 293, 247 N.E.2d 514. Further, Appellant was a former tenant of that motel and told one witness, Delores Watson, on the ......
  • Atkins v. State, 3--473A36
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 20, 1974
    ...... McGill v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 293, 247 N.E.2d 514.         The above circumstantial evidence and the reasonable inferences therefrom support the ......
  • 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