Moore v. State, No. 177
| Docket Nº | No. 177 |
| Citation | 268 Ind. 519, 376 N.E.2d 1129 |
| Case Date | June 16, 1978 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 1129
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
[268 Ind. 520]
Page 1130
Harriette Bailey Conn, Public Defender, Kenneth T. Roberts, Special Asst. Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Alembert W. Brayton, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
HUNTER, Justice.
The defendant, Eligha Moore, was indicted for first-degree murder and felony murder. He was found guilty of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than fifteen nor more than twenty-five years. On appeal he raises the following issues:
1. Whether any of certain alleged errors not objected to at trial were fundamental errors;
2. Whether charges against a co-defendant were improperly dismissed;
3. Whether the prosecutor improperly commented on the accused's failure to testify; and
4. Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict.
I.
During the prosecutor's opening statement the prosecutor stated that he would prove both the defendant and his co-defendant guilty of felony murder through the confession of co-defendant Turner. It is conceded that no objection was made. However, defendant contends that the statement was a violation of Bruton v. U. S., (1968) [268 Ind. 521] 391 U.S. 123, 88 S.Ct. 1620, 20 L.Ed.2d 476, and a fundamental error. The statement referred to was not admitted into evidence; however, Turner turned state's evidence and testified during the trial. There was no violation of Bruton and no fundamental error.
An instruction advised the jury that the indictment contained two counts, one for first-degree murder and one for felony murder. The jury was told it could return a verdict of guilty under either of those counts. The defendant alleges that the instruction is erroneous because first-degree murder is an included offense of felony murder, and it is improper to separate an included offense into another count. However, in Holland v. State, (1976) Ind., 352 N.E.2d 752, we held that a two-count indictment for first-degree murder and felony murder was proper.
An instruction was given by the trial court that the jury was not to consider the failure of the defendant to testify. This instruction was not objected to and was therefore not erroneous. Gross v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 489, 306 N.E.2d 371.
II.
The defendant was jointly indicted for the murder of George Brown. After their arrest, a confession was obtained from Turner, the co-defendant. A jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox v. State, No. 2-376A109
...of probative value to support each element of the offense, the judgment will be affirmed. Moore v. State Page 1164 (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1129. Furthermore, this Court does not judge the credibility of witnesses nor weigh the evidence. Bryant v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d In the case ......
-
Sizemore v. State, No. 1079S295
...Oricks v. State, (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d Page 787 1376; Harris v. State, (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 632; Moore v. State, (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1129. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that those cases which hold venue is an Element of an offense are ill-founded. We have extensively ......
-
Sizemore v. State, No. 1-1277A287
...N.E.2d 1230; Oricks v. State (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 1376; Harris v. State (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 632; Moore v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1129. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that those cases which hold venue is an Element of an offense are ill-founded. We have extensively......
-
Wiles v. State, No. 581S126
...is not disturbed. Burr v. State, Page 41 (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 343; Norris v. State, (1979) Ind., 394 N.E.2d 144; Moore v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 519, 376 N.E.2d In the case at bar, we find ample evidence to support the jury finding as to the identity of appellant as the assailant. The re......
-
Fox v. State, No. 2-376A109
...of probative value to support each element of the offense, the judgment will be affirmed. Moore v. State Page 1164 (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1129. Furthermore, this Court does not judge the credibility of witnesses nor weigh the evidence. Bryant v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d In the case ......
-
Sizemore v. State, No. 1079S295
...Oricks v. State, (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d Page 787 1376; Harris v. State, (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 632; Moore v. State, (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1129. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that those cases which hold venue is an Element of an offense are ill-founded. We have extensively ......
-
Sizemore v. State, No. 1-1277A287
...N.E.2d 1230; Oricks v. State (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 1376; Harris v. State (1978), Ind., 377 N.E.2d 632; Moore v. State (1978), Ind., 376 N.E.2d 1129. On the other hand, we are of the opinion that those cases which hold venue is an Element of an offense are ill-founded. We have extensively......
-
Wiles v. State, No. 581S126
...is not disturbed. Burr v. State, Page 41 (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 343; Norris v. State, (1979) Ind., 394 N.E.2d 144; Moore v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 519, 376 N.E.2d In the case at bar, we find ample evidence to support the jury finding as to the identity of appellant as the assailant. The re......