Nuckles v. State, 31056
| Decision Date | 15 May 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 31056,31056 |
| Citation | 250 Ind. 399,236 N.E.2d 818 |
| Parties | James Edward NUCKLES, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Hilbert L. Bradley, Gary, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, Rex Phillip Killian, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
The defendant was found guilty of first degree burglary after a trial before the court and jury in the LaPorte Superior Court, Michigan City, Indiana before Judge Norman H. Salwasser. Thereafter, the court sentenced the defendant to the Indiana State Prison for not less than ten (10) years nor more than twenty-one (21) years.
On appeal, the appellant assigned the following errors: did the court abuse its limited discretion in denying in part appellant's request for a discovery deposition prior to trial; whether the appellant was illegally arrested in violation of Article I, Section II, and 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution; whether admission of the oral confession violated the 4th, 6th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution as to equal protection, due process, involuntary self-incrimination unintelligently given without the advice of counsel; whether the court erred in admitting evidence of other crimes; and lastly, did the court err in giving Instructions No. 5 and 8 to the jury.
The appellant's first assignment of error was that the court erred in sustaining defendant's motion to take a deposition of the complaining witnesses prior to trial and overruled the defendant's motion to take a deposition of named police officers, violated Burns Ind.Stat. § 9--1610 and was an abuse of the court's limited discretion.
On this issue the appellant, through his attorney, filed a request for leave of the court to take depositions of certain named witnesses prior to the trial on the 23rd of July, 1965, which request included an order for the witnesses to appear before the court reporter upon notice and return served by the Sheriff of LaPorte County.
Thereafter, the court granted the taking of the deposition of the complaining witnesses, but denied the taking of depositions as to specified police officers.
After such a denial the appellant filed a motion for the court to reconsider its ruling denying leave of the appellant to take the depositions, which verified motion stated that it was essential for the appellant to take depositions in preparation for an adequate defense since these witnesses would testify either for the appellee or appellant. The motion further pointed out that these officers named had interrogated the defendant at the Michigan City police station and that to deny the defendant leave of court to take the depositions of said witnesses would deprive the defendant of his rights pursuant to Burns Ind.Stat. § 9--1610, and his right under the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution as pertaining to the due process and equal protection clause.
Burns Ind.Stat. 1956 Repl.Vol. 4, Pt. 1, § 9--1610 reads as follows:
'A defendant, by leave of court or by written notice to the prosecuting...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'Conner v. State
...N.E.2d 57; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584, 244 N.E.2d 127; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88, 239 N.E.2d 394; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399, 236 N.E.2d 818. See also Antrobus v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 420, 254 N.E.2d 873; Bernard v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 688, 230 N.E.2d Murp......
-
Antrobus v. State, 169S6
...the State failed to show a paramount interest, nor did the Trial Court on its own motion make such a finding.' See also Nuckles v. State (1968), Ind., 236 N.E.2d 818. We believe that the principle relied on in the above cases provides the basis for the review of the appellants' allegations ......
-
Murphy v. State
...N.E.2d 57; Howard v. State, (1969) 251 Ind. 584, 244 N.E.2d 127; Amaro v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 88, 239 N.E.2d 394; Nuckles v. State, (1968) 250 Ind. 399, 236 N.E.2d 818. See also Antrobus v. State, (1970) 253 Ind. 420, 254 N.E.2d 873; Bernard v. State, (1967) 248 Ind. 688, 230 N.E.2d In t......
-
State v. Singleton
...as in civil actions." See State v. Peterson, 219 N.W.2d 665, 668-69 (Iowa, 1974); Iowa R.Crim.P. 12(a). In Nuckles v. State, 250 Ind. 399, 402, 236 N.E.2d 818, 819 (1968), the Indiana Supreme Court, considering the pretrial depositions of police officers to be a "proper part of an adequate ......