Norris v. State, 1267S147
| Decision Date | 11 December 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 1267S147,1267S147 |
| Parties | Ronald Paul NORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Dean E. Richards, Indianapolis, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Michael V. Gooch, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
The appellant filed a petition for rehearing. He has alleged several grounds which he believes should cause us to reconsider our decision.
After a careful study of these grounds, we feel one was not adequately covered in our opinion. The one claim of error not directly disposed of was appellant's assigned error which concerned whether or not the record was sufficient to show that appellant was present in the courtroom during his trial.
We agree with petitioner that it is a fundamental right that an accused individual has a right to be present in the courtroom during his trial. However, we do not share the petitioner's view that it is encumbent upon the State to show that he was in fact present and that it is reversible error for it not to have done so. In other words, petitioner is requesting this Court to reverse the conviction because it was not shown whether or not the defendant was present.
Petitioner is not alleging that the defendant was not present, nor has he favored the Trial Court in his Motion for New Trial with any affidavits or other proof indicating such an absence. He is only alleging that the record does not adequately indicate such a presence.
While we feel that the record could be clearer on this point, there are at least three (3) passages in the record which indicate that the defendant was present during the trial.
The transcript of the case brought before this Court states, on the day evidence was heard:
'State of Indiana introduces evidence in chief and rests.
'The defendant Ronald Paul Norris introduces no evidence in the case and rests. * * *' (Emphasis added.)
Also, during cross examination of the prosecuting witness, Quinn, the following questions were asked, with the inference being that the appellant was present:
(Emphasis added.)
(Emphasis added.)
Quinn was later asked:
'You said that you had been friendly with both of these boys after this happened, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhodes v. State
...171 Ind. 317, 86 N.E. 397; Norris v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 155, 240 N.E.2d 45; Barnes v. State, (1964) 246 Ind. 485, 205 N.E.2d 539, 242 N.E.2d 359; Ellis v. State, (1969) 252 Ind. 472, 250 N.E.2d 364. We also recognize that the identification evidence must convince the trier of facts beyo......
-
Fox v. State
...inescapable. The issue of identity was a question of fact for the jury's resolution, Norris v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 155, 240 N.E.2d 45, 242 N.E.2d 359, cert. den. 395 U.S. 905, 89 S.Ct. 1743, 23 L.Ed.2d 218 (1969), and the evidence supports the inference that Fox was the person who inflic......