Poindexter v. State, No. 177S24

Docket NºNo. 177S24
Citation268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d 509
Case DateApril 17, 1978
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 509

374 N.E.2d 509
268 Ind. 167
St. Clair POINDEXTER, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 177S24.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 17, 1978.

[268 Ind. 170]

Page 510

Hugh G. Baker, Jr., Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Westly T. Wilson, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, St. Clair Poindexter, was convicted by a jury of commission of a felony while armed, to-wit: robbery, and sentenced to thirteen years' imprisonment.

Page 511

He now appeals and raises the following issues:

1. Whether the court erred in overruling the defendant's motion for change of venue from the judge;

2. Whether the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to dismiss the information for alleged failure to state the place of the crime with specificity;

3. Whether the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to challenge the array of the jury;

4. Whether the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to suppress the pre-trial identification of defendant;

5. Whether the court erred in failing to give defendant a preliminary hearing;

6. Whether the court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury;

7. Whether the court erred in admitting certain evidence;

8. Whether the court erred in denying defendant's request to personally participate in the final argument; and

9. Whether the verdict was sustained by sufficient evidence.

[268 Ind. 171] The events of the night of the crime can be summarized from the record. In August, 1975, the Indiana Liquor Carryout store owned by David Borman was robbed. At the time of the robbery Borman's wife and son were managing the store. Mrs. Borman noticed a gold Cadillac parked next to the store with two black male occupants. These men left their car, entered the liquor store, and started to purchase some liquor. One man picked up a bottle of rum and then pulled out a long knife and held it against Mrs. Borman's arm while he took money out of the cash register drawer. The two men then left in the Cadillac and Mrs. Borman reported the crime to the police. She had written down the license plate number, and the police stopped the car about fifteen minutes later. Two men and a woman were in the car.

The defendant got out of the car, walked to the front and threw $76.00 on the ground. A butcher knife was found in the car and a bottle of rum was found on the ground beside the car. A police car took Mrs. Borman to the scene where she identified the defendant and the other man as being the two robbers. She specifically identified the defendant as the man who had held a knife against her and taken money out of the cash register.

I.

The defendant first alleges that the court erred in overruling the motion for change of venue from the judge based on the fact that the judge was prejudiced because he lived on the same street as the victim. The defendant contends that when the application for a change of venue from the judge is based on the prejudice of the trial judge, there is no discretion to refuse the motion.

However, our Indiana cases clearly hold that it is only the first change of venue from a judge that must be granted without discretion. State ex rel. Benjamin v. Criminal Court of Marion County, (1976) Ind., 341 N.E.2d 495; Ind.R.Crim.P. 12. Subsequent [268 Ind. 172] changes from either the county or the judge may be granted at the discretion of the court if the defendant can show good cause. Bradberry v. State, (1974) 160 Ind.App. 202, 311 N.E.2d 437.

In the instant case, the defendant had already been granted one change of judge from The Honorable Andrew Jacobs, Sr., for the reason of prejudice. Therefore, it was within the discretion of the trial court to deny his subsequent motion for change of judge.

The defendant contends that Judge Jasper was prejudiced because he lived on the same street as the prosecuting witness. The record does not support this contention but shows that the judge stated in open court that he did not know the prosecuting witness and did not know where she lived. The record further shows that the judge lived four blocks away from the witness. In a large city it is not unusual not to be acquainted with or know persons who live on the same street, especially those who live

Page 512

four blocks away. Under these circumstances there was no abuse of discretion in denying defendant's motion for change of judge.

II.

The defendant next argues that the place of the crime should have been alleged more specifically in the information. The information stated that the crime took place "at and in the County of Marion in the State of Indiana," and further stated that the property which was stolen was "the property of David Borman doing business as Indiana Liquors." This Court has held that an indictment for murder is sufficient as against a motion to quash if it alleges that the offense was committed within the county. Robbins v. State, (1968) 251 Ind. 313, 241 N.E.2d 148; State v. Carrier, (1956) 235 Ind. 456, 134 N.E.2d 688. The defendant has failed to show how the lack of a more specific address has mislead or prejudiced him. There was no trial court error in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the information.

[268 Ind. 173] III.

The defendant argues that the panel of jurors in his case was not a significant or fair cross-section of the community because of the jury selection process employed by the Marion County Criminal Court, Division Three. This selection process involves sending a questionnaire with each summons to allow prospective jurors to state reasons why they should not serve. This Court has recently upheld the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
103 practice notes
  • Watt v. State, No. 2-1178A382
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 3 Noviembre 1980
    ...to the evidence most favorable to the State, along with all reasonable inferences to be derived therefrom. Poindexter v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d As discussed earlier, the evidence shows that both defendants lived at 3050 Meredith. Defendants' argument regarding proof that the......
  • Head v. State, No. 780S209
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 14 Diciembre 1982
    ...that inherently, one-on-one confrontations between a suspect and victim are very suggestive. See, e.g., Poindexter v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d 509; Cooper v. State, (1977) 265 Ind. 700, 359 N.E.2d 532. Generally speaking, we have found one-on-one confrontations proper only in ......
  • O'Conner v. State, No. 2-378A99
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 29 Noviembre 1978
    ...value from which the jury could properly find the defendant guilty of such lesser included offense. See Poindexter v. State, (1978) Ind., 374 N.E.2d 509, 513. Thus, although the jury might be sustained on sufficiency grounds in convicting for a lesser offense not present in a case, the cour......
  • Thompson v. State, No. 882S303
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Abril 1986
    ...similar to furnishing questionnaires or pamphlets, generally describing the jury duty, to prospective jurors. Poindexter v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d 509; Brown v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 82, 360 N.E.2d 830. The jury panel was given no identification nor details of any case, inc......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
103 cases
  • Watt v. State, No. 2-1178A382
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 3 Noviembre 1980
    ...to the evidence most favorable to the State, along with all reasonable inferences to be derived therefrom. Poindexter v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d As discussed earlier, the evidence shows that both defendants lived at 3050 Meredith. Defendants' argument regarding proof that the......
  • Head v. State, No. 780S209
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 14 Diciembre 1982
    ...that inherently, one-on-one confrontations between a suspect and victim are very suggestive. See, e.g., Poindexter v. State, (1978) 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d 509; Cooper v. State, (1977) 265 Ind. 700, 359 N.E.2d 532. Generally speaking, we have found one-on-one confrontations proper only in ......
  • O'Conner v. State, No. 2-378A99
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 29 Noviembre 1978
    ...value from which the jury could properly find the defendant guilty of such lesser included offense. See Poindexter v. State, (1978) Ind., 374 N.E.2d 509, 513. Thus, although the jury might be sustained on sufficiency grounds in convicting for a lesser offense not present in a case, the cour......
  • Thompson v. State, No. 882S303
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 25 Abril 1986
    ...similar to furnishing questionnaires or pamphlets, generally describing the jury duty, to prospective jurors. Poindexter v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 167, 374 N.E.2d 509; Brown v. State (1977), 266 Ind. 82, 360 N.E.2d 830. The jury panel was given no identification nor details of any case, inc......
  • 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