Parker v. State, No. 369S66

Docket NºNo. 369S66
Citation254 Ind. 593, 261 N.E.2d 562
Case DateSeptember 03, 1970
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 562

261 N.E.2d 562
254 Ind. 593
Jesse PARKER, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 369S66.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept. 3, 1970.
Rehearing Denied Nov. 9, 1970.

[254 Ind. 594] G. Stanley Hood, Ft. Wayne, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Mark Peden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

DeBRULER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a conviction for First Degree Burglary, Acts 1941, ch. 148, § 4, being Burns Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--701(a) in a trial by jury in the Allen Circuit Court. Appellant's sole contention is that the witness, Janet Mangona's identification of appellant was illegal because appellant did not have counsel present at the identification. The pertinent facts are as follows:

On November 4, 1967, at approximately 1:30 a.m. the witness, Janet Mangona was returning to the apartment she shared with her parents on the second floor at 2101 Brooklyn Avenue, Fort Wayne, Indiana. As she pulled up to the house she saw the upstairs hall light come on. She went up the outside stairs at the rear of the house to the back porch. On the porch she saw a man facing her about 3--4 ft. away, standing in the light from the porch light. The witness asked the man what he was doing there and he replied that he was looking for the Smiths. The witness told him she did not know where any Smiths lived and the man brushed past her, shoving her against the wall and went down the steps. When the witness first saw the man he had his hands behind his back and as he went down the steps the witness saw that he was holding a blue suede billfold belonging to her mother. Her mother's big black pocketbook was lying open on the porch floor.

When the police arrived the witness told them the man was Negro, about 5 5 tall, wore a paisley shirt, green sweater, dark slacks, a hat and had silver hair showing under the hat.

Page 563

Officer Smith testified that in response to a radio description he noticed appellant walking down the street wearing a [254 Ind. 595] green sweater and dark slacks. Smith stopped appellant in a tavern parking lot and asked him to return to 2101 Brooklyn Avenue with two other police officers who had arrived. Appellant consented to do so. When Janet Mangona viewed appellant he was in the police car with the inside light on and a police officer also shined a flashlight in the car. Appellant never got out of the car and did not have a hat on but the witness testified that he was a Negro, wore a paisley shirt, green sweater, dark slacks and had silver in his hair. The witness told the police that the man in the car was the one she had seen with the purse. Officer Smith then returned to the parking lot where he had first contacted appellant and found the blue suede billfold belonging to Janet Mangona's mother.

At the trial the witness Mangona testified that appellant was the same man who was no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Perryman v. State, No. 43681
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 16, 1971
    ...short time after the commission of the alleged offense.' See also Lewis v. State, 250 N.E.2d 358 (Ind., 1959); Parker v. State, 261 N.E.2d 562 Although the United States Supreme Court has not yet clarified the meaning of its holdings in Wade, Gilbert and Stovall, the vast majority of state ......
  • LeFlore v. State, No. 572A225
    • United States
    • August 9, 1973
    ...whether the witness can identify the suspect is not within the scope of the Wade[157 Ind.App. 298] -Gilbert rule. Parker v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 593, 261 N.E.2d 562; McPhearson v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 254, 253 N.E.2d 226; Lewis v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 454, 250 N.E.2d 358.' Dillard v. ......
  • Hardin v. State, No. 372A124
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 22, 1972
    ...Supreme Court had already ruled Wade-Gilbert inapplicable. Dillard v. State (1971), Ind., 274 N.E.2d 387; Parker v. State (1970), Ind., 261 N.E.2d 562. In any event, with respect to appellant's assertion that his confrontation identification denied his right to due process, the question was......
  • Winston v. State, No. 674S118
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 25, 1975
    ...for observation by the witness, opportunity to observe particular characteristics of the criminal, etc. See Parker v. State, supra (254 Ind. 593, 261 N.E.2d 562).' 257 Ind. at 286, 274 N.E.2d at 389, 27 Ind.Dec. at We hold that under the facts in its case, the Appellant was not denied due p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Perryman v. State, No. 43681
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas. Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
    • September 16, 1971
    ...short time after the commission of the alleged offense.' See also Lewis v. State, 250 N.E.2d 358 (Ind., 1959); Parker v. State, 261 N.E.2d 562 Although the United States Supreme Court has not yet clarified the meaning of its holdings in Wade, Gilbert and Stovall, the vast majority of state ......
  • LeFlore v. State, No. 572A225
    • United States
    • August 9, 1973
    ...whether the witness can identify the suspect is not within the scope of the Wade[157 Ind.App. 298] -Gilbert rule. Parker v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 593, 261 N.E.2d 562; McPhearson v. State (1970), 253 Ind. 254, 253 N.E.2d 226; Lewis v. State (1969), 252 Ind. 454, 250 N.E.2d 358.' Dillard v. ......
  • Hardin v. State, No. 372A124
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 22, 1972
    ...Supreme Court had already ruled Wade-Gilbert inapplicable. Dillard v. State (1971), Ind., 274 N.E.2d 387; Parker v. State (1970), Ind., 261 N.E.2d 562. In any event, with respect to appellant's assertion that his confrontation identification denied his right to due process, the question was......
  • Winston v. State, No. 674S118
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 25, 1975
    ...for observation by the witness, opportunity to observe particular characteristics of the criminal, etc. See Parker v. State, supra (254 Ind. 593, 261 N.E.2d 562).' 257 Ind. at 286, 274 N.E.2d at 389, 27 Ind.Dec. at We hold that under the facts in its case, the Appellant was not denied due p......
  • 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