Nelson v. State, No. 677S472
| Docket Nº | No. 677S472 |
| Citation | 409 N.E.2d 637, 274 Ind. 218 |
| Case Date | September 26, 1980 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Page 637
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
Nile Stanton, Stanton, Boyle, Hyatt & Reuben, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Jack R. O'Neill, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
PRENTICE, Justice.
This is an appeal from the denial of post conviction relief. Petitioner, Nelson, was convicted of Second Degree Murder in 1970 over a claim and some evidence of self-defense. His direct appeal to this Court resulted in an affirmance, reported at 259 Ind. 339, 287 N.E.2d 336.
Petitioner filed a petition for post conviction relief under Ind. Rule P.C. 1, predicated upon newly discovered evidence, on January 8, 1975; and the trial court granted summary judgment denying relief on April 24, 1975. No appeal was taken from such judgment.
On February 11, 1976, the petitioner filed a second petition for relief under Ind.Rule P.C. 1, and it is the trial court's denial of relief upon this petition that is now before us.
At the trial on the murder charge, petitioner's attorney tendered [274 Ind. 219] no instructions. The court gave general instructions on the presumption of innocence and the State's burden to prove the Petitioner's guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt and there defined reasonable doubt. It also gave a general instruction on the right to the exercise of self-defense. It gave no instruction upon the relevance of the petitioner's and the decedent's respective reputations for peace and quietude.
The instruction on self-defense advised that one could exercise the right of self-defense when he reasonably believed himself to be in danger from the "act of his assailant" rather than from the "acts and threats of his assailant," and Petitioner contends that the instruction was, therefore, fatally defective. He further charges that such
Page 638
defect and the failure to instruct, sua sponte and specifically, that the State had the burden to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not act in self-defense and that the reputation of the petitioner and the decedent could be considered was reversible error.The trial court denied relief upon the petition, responding affirmatively to the State's answers that such errors had been waived, and the issue before us is whether the matters complained of, if in fact errors, were such as have become known as fundamental error, which may be raised at any time. Such errors have been variously described as a failure to meet the requirements of due process of law, Wilson v. State, (1943) 222 Ind. 63, 83, 51 N.E.2d 848;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Canaan v. Davis, Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K (S.D. Ind. 1/10/2003), Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K.
...error). Tracing the roots of the fundamental error doctrine from Jackson to Smith, one finds a citation in Smith to Nelson v. State, 409 N.E.2d 637, 638 (Ind. 1980), which in turn cited Wilson v. State, 51 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. 1943). Wilson itself relied on and discussed in detail both state an......
-
Brewer v. State, No. 678
..."must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." Nelson v. State, (1980) Ind., 409 N.E.2d 637, 639. We are, nevertheless, at liberty to review questions, notwithstanding non-compliance with our rules, Lindsey v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 1......
-
Williams v. State, No. 2-1284A388
..."the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." Nelson v. State (1980) 274 Ind. 218, 220, 409 N.E.2d 637, 638. "[T]he error complained of must be such that, if not rectified, would deny the defendant 'fundamental due process.......
-
Haggard v. State, No. 782S259
...is blatant and appears clearly on the face of the record. Thomas v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 231; Nelson v. State, (1980) Ind., 409 N.E.2d 637; Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286, 231 N.E.2d 797. Clearly, one of the most fundamental principles of criminal law is that a person may not......
-
Canaan v. Davis, Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K (S.D. Ind. 1/10/2003), Cause No. IP 97-1847-C H/K.
...error). Tracing the roots of the fundamental error doctrine from Jackson to Smith, one finds a citation in Smith to Nelson v. State, 409 N.E.2d 637, 638 (Ind. 1980), which in turn cited Wilson v. State, 51 N.E.2d 848 (Ind. 1943). Wilson itself relied on and discussed in detail both state an......
-
Brewer v. State, No. 678
..."must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." Nelson v. State, (1980) Ind., 409 N.E.2d 637, 639. We are, nevertheless, at liberty to review questions, notwithstanding non-compliance with our rules, Lindsey v. State, (1976) 264 Ind. 1......
-
Williams v. State, No. 2-1284A388
..."the error must be blatant, and the potential for harm must be substantial and appear clearly and prospectively." Nelson v. State (1980) 274 Ind. 218, 220, 409 N.E.2d 637, 638. "[T]he error complained of must be such that, if not rectified, would deny the defendant 'fundamental due process.......
-
Haggard v. State, No. 782S259
...is blatant and appears clearly on the face of the record. Thomas v. State, (1981) Ind., 428 N.E.2d 231; Nelson v. State, (1980) Ind., 409 N.E.2d 637; Young v. State, (1967) 249 Ind. 286, 231 N.E.2d 797. Clearly, one of the most fundamental principles of criminal law is that a person may not......