Riley v. State, No. 1080S390

Docket NºNo. 1080S390
Citation427 N.E.2d 1074
Case DateNovember 13, 1981
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1074

427 N.E.2d 1074
Louis Edward "Buddy" RILEY, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 1080S390.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Nov. 13, 1981.

Page 1075

Mark W. Hunter, Brazil, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

GIVAN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was charged with rape and criminal confinement. A jury trial resulted in a finding of guilty on both counts. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of fifty (50) years on the count of rape, and a term of four (4) years on the count of criminal confinement, the terms to run consecutively.

The record reveals the following facts. On the night of September 9, 1979, one C.F. was forced into a truck by a young man who then drove her to a secluded spot in Clay County and raped and beat her. She described her assailant to a Clay County deputy sheriff immediately after the incident. On September 24, the victim offered a description to state police while she was under hypnosis. At that time a composite sketch of the assailant was drawn. Though there were inconsistencies in these descriptions, C.F. described her assailant as clean-shaven in all of them.

Two attempts to have the victim identify her assailant from police mug shots were unsuccessful. On January 21, 1980, C.F. identified appellant as her assailant, working from a specially prepared photographic display. She also identified appellant later as he stood trial in Vigo County on a rape charge.

Prior to trial, appellant filed a Motion to Suppress Photographic Evidence in regard to C.F.'s identification from the display. Said motion was granted due to the suggestive nature of the display, however, at trial appellant himself introduced the display as a defense exhibit. Appellant filed a Motion in Limine to prohibit all in-court identification, arguing C.F. had no basis for identifying him independent of allegedly suggestive pretrial confrontations. The trial court denied the Motion in Limine.

Appellant submitted testimony to the effect he had a beard in September of 1979. A photograph taken for booking purposes in the Vigo County jail on unrelated charges on September 14, five days after the rape, showed him with at least some facial hair. The photograph used in the display, shown

Page 1076

to C.F. on January 21, showed appellant clean-shaven but the date on which the photograph was taken could not be established. The appellant was arrested on January 22. A photograph taken at that time shows he had a beard.

Appellant claims the trial court erred in not granting his Motion in Limine to suppress all in-court identification of appellant by the victim. However, to preserve error in this question it was also necessary for the appellant to object to the evidence of identification at the time it was offered. It is not sufficient to stand on the denying of his Motion in Limine. Waters v. State, (1981) Ind., 415 N.E.2d 711; Pavone v. State, (1980) Ind., 402 N.E.2d 976. At the time the victim made the in-court identification of the appellant there was no objection. We hold this failure to object to the in-court identification was a waiver of the objection. There is no error involved, therefore, in the in-court identification of the appellant.

Appellant claims error concerning alleged improprieties committed by the State in final argument to the jury. Final arguments to the jury in this case were not recorded by the court reporter....

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Moore v. State, No. 12S02-9507-CR-838
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 18, 1996
    ...to the introduction of evidence, see Lindsey v. State, 485 N.E.2d 102 (Ind.1985), makes only a general objection, see Riley v. State, 427 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind.1981), or objects only on other grounds, see Schweitzer v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1386 (Ind.1989), the defendant waives the suppression claim......
  • Johnston v. State, No. 29S00-8610-CR-925
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 8, 1988
    ...conduct did not unduly place Johnston in a position of grave peril requiring the court's intervention. Riley v. State (1981), Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1074, The trial court is affirmed. SHEPARD, C.J., and GIVAN and DICKSON, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., concurs in result without opinion. ...
  • Wagner v. State, No. 582S200
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 14, 1985
    ...the voice identification evidence was admitted so he has waived any further consideration of this issue. Riley v. State, (1981) Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1074. II Defendant next contends that he was denied a fair trial because the State failed to comply with the trial court's discovery order. In add......
  • Shuttleworth v. State, No. 4-1282A373
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 31, 1984
    ...incomplete. In the absence of objection and of a clearer specification of error, the issue is waived. See Riley v. State, (1981) Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1074. In his motion to correct error, Shuttleworth complains he was not afforded a fair and complete trial because he had been unable to locate t......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Moore v. State, No. 12S02-9507-CR-838
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • July 18, 1996
    ...to the introduction of evidence, see Lindsey v. State, 485 N.E.2d 102 (Ind.1985), makes only a general objection, see Riley v. State, 427 N.E.2d 1074 (Ind.1981), or objects only on other grounds, see Schweitzer v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1386 (Ind.1989), the defendant waives the suppression claim......
  • Johnston v. State, No. 29S00-8610-CR-925
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 8, 1988
    ...conduct did not unduly place Johnston in a position of grave peril requiring the court's intervention. Riley v. State (1981), Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1074, The trial court is affirmed. SHEPARD, C.J., and GIVAN and DICKSON, JJ., concur. DeBRULER, J., concurs in result without opinion. ...
  • Wagner v. State, No. 582S200
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • February 14, 1985
    ...the voice identification evidence was admitted so he has waived any further consideration of this issue. Riley v. State, (1981) Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1074. II Defendant next contends that he was denied a fair trial because the State failed to comply with the trial court's discovery order. In add......
  • Shuttleworth v. State, No. 4-1282A373
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 31, 1984
    ...incomplete. In the absence of objection and of a clearer specification of error, the issue is waived. See Riley v. State, (1981) Ind., 427 N.E.2d 1074. In his motion to correct error, Shuttleworth complains he was not afforded a fair and complete trial because he had been unable to locate t......
  • 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