Pitts v. State
Decision Date | 27 September 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 781S188,781S188 |
Citation | 439 N.E.2d 1140 |
Parties | Arthur PITTS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Ray Warren Robison, Bedford, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Aimee L. Kolze, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
Appellant was tried and convicted by a jury of theft and found to be an habitual offender. The trial court granted a new trial limited to the habitual offender question pursuant to appellant's motion to correct errors. The trial court found improper testimony consisting of communications between appellant and a probation officer had been elicited from the probation officer during the trial on the habitual criminal charge. A new trial was held solely on the status issue. Appellant was adjudicated an habitual offender and sentenced to a thirty year term of imprisonment.
Appellant claims the trial court erred in denying his motion to reconvene the original jury to consider the habitual criminal count. Appellant argues I.C. Sec. 35-50-2-8(c) [Burns 1979] mandates that the jury hearing the habitual criminal proceeding must be the same panel that determined the underlying felony conviction.
This Court recently addressed this issue in Funk v. State, (1981) Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1081, stating at 1088:
Appellant claims the trial court erred by admitting State's exhibits E and K through O. Appellant has failed to present argument or cite authority regarding the admissibility of exhibit E. Therefore, the issue is waived. Lock v. State, (1980) Ind., 403 N.E.2d 1360. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of ET
...State, 464 N.E.2d 912 (Ind.1984); McBrady v. State, 459 N.E.2d 719 (Ind.1984); Belcher v. State, 453 N.E.2d 214 (Ind.1983); Pitts v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind.1982); Underhill v. State, 428 N.E.2d 759 (Ind.1981); Jennings v. State, 723 N.E.2d 970 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); Payne v. State, 658 N.E......
-
In re Matter of E.T., No. 02S03-0308-JV-367 (IN 5/20/2004)
...464 N.E.2d 912 (Ind. 1984); McBrady v. State, 459 N.E.2d 719 (Ind. 1984); Belcher v. State, 453 N.E.2d 214 (Ind. 1983); Pitts v. State, 439 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. 1982); Underhill v. State, 428 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. 1981); Jennings v. State, 723 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); Payne v. State, 658 N.......
-
Perkins v. State
...by an authorized person having personal knowledge of the transaction represented at the time of entry. McBrady, supra; Pitts v. State (1982), Ind., 439 N.E.2d 1140. Corner's testimony was sufficient to establish the foundation necessary for the admission of the Perkins contends the trial co......
-
Mc Brady v. State
...in the record by an authorized person, having personal knowledge of the transaction represented at the time of entry. Pitts v. State, (1982) Ind., 439 N.E.2d 1140, 1142; Morris v. State, (1980) Ind. 406 N.E.2d 1187, 1191; Thompson v. State, (1979) 270 Ind. 442, 444, 386 N.E.2d 682, 684; Cro......