Rexroat v. State, No. 30418

Docket NºNo. 30418
Citation245 Ind. 688, 201 N.E.2d 558
Case DateOctober 15, 1964

Page 558

201 N.E.2d 558
245 Ind. 688
Oren Clay REXROAT, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 30418.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Oct. 15, 1964.

[245 IND 689] William C. Erbecker, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., David S. Wedding, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellees.

LANDIS, Justice.

Appellant was charged with first degree burglary, auto banditry and disorderly conduct and after a jury trial was convicted of entering to commit a felony, auto banditry and disorderly conduct. He was sentenced for a term of one to five years for auto banditry and was sentenced to 60 days imprisonment and fined $100.00 for disorderly conduct. Sentence was not imposed for the conviction of entering to commit a felony.

Appellant first claims error upon the alleged misconduct of the deputy prosecuting attorney in saying prior to the trial in the presence of prospective jurors:

'* * * Rexroat wants to cause as much trouble as possible for the State and for the Court, and we resist any continuance.'

However, it does not appear that appellant or his counsel made objection at the time to the deputy prosecutor's remarks.

Page 559

It is well settled that a party complaining of error must object thereto and also request the court for action that will remedy the alleged error after it has occurred. Dull v. State (1962), 242 Ind. 633, 638, 180 N.E.2d 523, 525. Here it solely appears a co-defendant's attorney asked the court to admonish the jurors and the court thereupon[245 IND 690] directed them not to let any remarks influence them in any way. It thus appears the court here completely granted the counsel's request as to admonishment and the court's ruling is therefore not subject to attack on appeal. There is further no motion to discharge the jury appearing in the record, although rules of procedure require an injured party, if he thinks misconduct is of such a character that the damage cannot be repaired by any action of the court, to move to discharge the jury or take such other steps as he may think will secure to him a fair trial. If he fails to do this, and permits the case to proceed to final determination, he must be deemed to have waived all questions arising out of such alleged misconduct. Coleman v. State (1887), 111 Ind. 563, 567, 13 N.E. 100, 102; Henning v. State (1886), 106 Ind. 386, 392, 6 N.E. 803, 807.

Appellant has next complained of the alleged insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdicts of the jury.

The evidence most favorable to the State is as follows: Witness Clifton Sailor, who lived across from the burglarized Williams home, noticed at about 8:00 p. m....

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Moore v. State, No. 372A134
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 Diciembre 1972
    ...are committed by the Court as when erroneous and improper questions are propounded by opposing counsel.' In Rexroat v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 688, 690, 201 N.E.2d 558, 559 our Supreme Court held '. . . (I)f . . . (the Defendant) thinks misconduct is of such a character that the damage canno......
  • Bennett v. State, No. 2--473A101
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 26 Diciembre 1973
    ...722; Micks v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 278, 230 N.E.2d 298; Moore v. State (1972), Ind.Ct.App., 290 N.E.2d 472; Rexroat v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 688, 201 N.E.2d See also, Dull v. State (1962), 242 Ind. 633, 180 N.E.2d 523; Harrison v. State (1972), [159 Ind.App. 63] Ind., 281 N.E.2d 98; Coop......
  • Reid v. State, No. 89A01-9806-CR-222.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 17 Noviembre 1999
    ...the defendant must move to discharge the jury or take such other steps as he may think will secure him a fair trial. Rexroat v. State, 245 Ind. 688, 690, 201 N.E.2d 558, 559 (1964). If the defendant fails to take any steps whatever and allows the case to proceed to final determination, then......
  • Burgett v. State, No. 2--1173A240
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 Agosto 1974
    ...requiring an objection is not diluted by such a contention. Brown v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 47, 262 N.E.2d 515; Rexroat v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 688, 201 N.E.2d 558; Hauk v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 92; Coakley v. State (1972), Ind.App., 283 N.E.2d [161 Ind.App. 165] While the Pr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Moore v. State, No. 372A134
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 14 Diciembre 1972
    ...are committed by the Court as when erroneous and improper questions are propounded by opposing counsel.' In Rexroat v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 688, 690, 201 N.E.2d 558, 559 our Supreme Court held '. . . (I)f . . . (the Defendant) thinks misconduct is of such a character that the damage canno......
  • Bennett v. State, No. 2--473A101
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 26 Diciembre 1973
    ...722; Micks v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 278, 230 N.E.2d 298; Moore v. State (1972), Ind.Ct.App., 290 N.E.2d 472; Rexroat v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 688, 201 N.E.2d See also, Dull v. State (1962), 242 Ind. 633, 180 N.E.2d 523; Harrison v. State (1972), [159 Ind.App. 63] Ind., 281 N.E.2d 98; Coop......
  • Reid v. State, No. 89A01-9806-CR-222.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 17 Noviembre 1999
    ...the defendant must move to discharge the jury or take such other steps as he may think will secure him a fair trial. Rexroat v. State, 245 Ind. 688, 690, 201 N.E.2d 558, 559 (1964). If the defendant fails to take any steps whatever and allows the case to proceed to final determination, then......
  • Burgett v. State, No. 2--1173A240
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 Agosto 1974
    ...requiring an objection is not diluted by such a contention. Brown v. State (1970), 255 Ind. 47, 262 N.E.2d 515; Rexroat v. State (1964), 245 Ind. 688, 201 N.E.2d 558; Hauk v. State (1974), Ind.App., 312 N.E.2d 92; Coakley v. State (1972), Ind.App., 283 N.E.2d [161 Ind.App. 165] While the Pr......
  • 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