Skaggs v. State, 30767
| Decision Date | 18 October 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 30767,30767 |
| Parties | Gerald Albert SKAGGS, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Carl E. Van Dorn, Kokomo, for appellant.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., for appellee.
This matter comes to us on appeal from a judgment of conviction of the crime of sodomy.
Appellant was charged by affidavit in two counts, count one charged him with the crime of 'Sodomy' with one Debbie Riddle, a human being; count two charged him with the crime of 'Assault and Battery with Intent to Satisfy Sexual Desires.'
On September 16, 1964, appellant appeared in open count in person and by counsel and entered a plea of not guilty to both counts of the affidavit.
Counsel for appellant entered his appearance and filed a petition to supress evidence, which, omitting formal parts and signatures, reads as follows:
'Comes now the Defendant, by his attorney, and petitions the Court to suppress and return to Defendant a certain written instrument dated July 16, 1964 which said written instrument purports to be a statement made by the Defendant and witnessed by Russell Nicholas and Virgil Turner, and in support of said motion to suppress would respectfully show to the Court that the purported statement was not given by the Defendant of his own free will and accord but was taken in violation of the Defendant's rights as contained in the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of Indiana.'
Thereafter, the court denied the petition to suppress evidence.
Said cause was submitted for trial by jury and at the conclusion of the State's evidence appellant, by counsel, filed Motions for Directed Verdict, such motions, omitting formal parts thereof and signatures thereto, read as follows:
'Comes now the Defendant, by his attorney, who, at the close of the State's evidence and reserving the right to submit additional evidence and be heard in argument, now moves the Court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on the charge of assault and battery with intent to gratify sexual desires or any included offense for the reason that the State has not proven a prima facie case.'
'Comes now the Defendant, by his attorney, who, at the close of the State's evidence and reserving the right to submit additional evidence and be heard in argument, now moves the Court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty on the charge of sodomy for the reason that the State has not proven a prima facie case.'
The court overruled both motions and refused instructions numbered A and B tendered therewith.
At the close of all evidence appellant filed Motions for Directed Verdict addressed to both counts of the affidavit and tendered appropriate instructions, which motions and instructions the court took under advisement, admonished the jury and permitted it to separate for the night.
Thereafter, the appellant, in open court, filed an Amended Motion for Directed Verdict at the close of all the evidence with tendered instructions C, D, E and F. The amended motion, omitting formal parts and signature thereto, reads as follows:
'Comes now the Defendant, at the conclusion of all the evidence in this cause, and now renews his motion for a directed veridct, which said motion was made at the conclusion of the State's case in chief.
'Defendant now further moves for a directed verdict, at the conclusion of all evidence in this cause for the reason that the State has not proven the Defendant guilty of any crime charged herein beyond a reasonable doubt.'
Thereafter, the amended motion for directed verdict was overruled by the court.
The jury returned its verdict finding appellant guilty of Sodomy as charged in count one of the affidavit and that he was a male person 18 years of age; the jury by its verdict also found the appellant not guilty of the charge of Assault and Battery with intent to gratify sexual desires.
Thereafter, on the 17th day of December 1964, appellant was, pursuant to the verdict of the jury, sentenced to the Indiana Reformatory for a term of not less than two (2) nor more than fourteen (14) years and fined in the sum of $300.00 and costs. Sentence was suspended during good behavior and appellant was placed on probation for three years.
Within time, appellant filed his motion for new trial, such motion contained twelve grounds and covers sixteen pages of record. The grounds may be summarized as ten (10) grounds charging error of law at the trial, in permitting the witness Martha Riddle to answer certain questions over objections of the appellant; in permitting the introduction of State's Exhibit No. 1 (appellant's alleged confession) in evidence over objection; in giving State's instructions Nos. 3, 10, and 11; in refusing to give defendant's tendered instructions Nos. 3, 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34; in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict at close of State's evidence; in refusing to give defendant's tendered instructions A and B; in denying defendant's Amended Motion for Directed Verdict at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walker v. State
...as '* * * a repetition of what has been said by another and does not come from the personal knowledge of the witness.' Skaggs v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 639, 220 N.E.2d 528. Perhaps the major objection to hearsay evidence is that it deprives the party against whom it is admitted of an opport......
-
Mogle v. State
...rule is the lack of opportunity to cross-examine the person who has personal knowledge of the events at issue." Skaggs v. State, (1966) 247 Ind. 639, 643, 220 N.E.2d 528, 530. However, on appeal, Mogle argues the copy of the judgment was inadmissible on the basis of relevancy--that there wa......
-
Matthews v. State
...by the incident. On past occasions, this Court has had to reverse convictions resulting from similar hearsay evidence. Skaggs v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 639, 220 N.E.2d 528; Ketcham v. State (1959), 240 Ind. 107, 162 N.E.2d 247. As stated in We recognize that some crimes are committed and th......
-
Lock v. State
...because it deprives the defendant of the opportunity to cross examine the declaration and confront the declarant. Skaggs v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 639, 643, 220 N.E.2d 528, 530. This Court in Morse v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 652, 655, 413 N.E.2d 885, 887, discussed the hearsay rule. In Morse......