Shock v. State

• Decision Date: 22 January 1929
• Docket Number: 24,889
• Parties: Shock v. State of Indiana
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

164 N.E. 625

200 Ind. 469

Shock v. State of Indiana

No. 24,889

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 22, 1929

CRIMINAL LAW---Writ of Coram Nobis---Petition Denied.---A petition for a writ of coram nobis by a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for the rape of a female child under twelve years of age, in which the applicant alleges that his conviction was secured by the perjured testimony of the prosecuting witness, who now repudiates her testimony in an affidavit filed as an exhibit with the petition will be denied: (1) where prosecutrix does not state how she would testify in the event a new trial was granted; (2) where prosecutrix' testimony at the trial was corroborated by testimony of police officers and a police matron that the defendant had confessed his guilt after arrest; (3) where the affidavit of prosecutrix' mother stated that though she believed defendant took undue liberties with her daughter she did not believe he raped her, but did not define "undue liberties"; (4) where the applicant was shown to have cross-examined the state's witnesses at the trial regarding a medical examination which the affidavit of relatrix's mother says showed that there was no rupture of the hymen; and (5) where the affidavits, upon which the petition is based, ask that a pardon, and not a new trial be granted.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court.

Fred Shock was convicted of the crime of rape on a female child under the age of twelve years, and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment, his conviction having been affirmed by the Supreme Court. He filed a petition in the Supreme Court for a writ of coram nobis.

Petition denied.

Robert A. Buhler, attorney for petitioner.

OPINION

Martin, C. J.

The appellant, who is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Indiana State Prison for the rape of a female child under the age of twelve years, petitions this court for a writ of error coram nobis, alleging that his conviction was secured by the perjured evidence of the prosecuting witness, who now repudiates the same in an affidavit filed as an exhibit to the petition, and prays that he be permitted to file in the Allen Circuit Court a motion for a new trial and that the Allen Circuit Court be directed to consider said motion and investigate and decide the truth or falsity of the matters alleged, and to certify to this court the result of its consideration and investigation.

The prosecuting witness, who was twelve years old at the time of the trial, is now seventeen years old. In her affidavit, she says in part: "The conviction of Fred Shock was had upon my uncorroborated testimony, which testimony was in substance that Fred Shock had sexual intercourse with me more than ten times. I made the charges and testified against him because I was angry . . . . Fred Shock never had sexual intercourse with me at any time and he is not guilty of the offense with [for] which he is now in prison. I make this statement of my own free will and accord and ask that Fred Shock be...