Souerdike v. State
| Decision Date | 07 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | 26962. |
| Citation | 15 N.E.2d 379,214 Ind. 523 |
| Parties | SOUERDIKE et al. v. STATE. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Appeal from Dubois Circuit Court; Eldo W. Wood Judge.
Louis A. Savage, of Jasper, and Lutz & Johnson, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Omer Stokes Jackson, Atty. Gen., and Patrick J. Smith, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
An affidavit was filed in the Dubois Circuit Court charging Frank Souerdike, Geoffrey Brothers, and Ott Workman with an attempted robbery while armed. Workman was not brought to trial. Souerdike pleaded quilty and was sentenced to prison. Brothers, the appellant herein, pleaded not guilty, was tried before a jury, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
In preparation for trial, the court, upon request of the prosecuting attorney, ordered a special venire of 50 names to be drawn for jury service. In directing the clerk of the court to draw the special venire, it was ordered that the clerk, the jury commissioners, and the sheriff of Dubois County should not divulge the names contained in the special venire, or make extra copies thereof, and especially directed that the names of the person drawn be not furnished to either the State of Indiana or the defendant until the sheriff made his return on the special venire, to which order and ruling of the court the defendant at the time objected and excepted, asked, and was granted, ten days within which to reduce his objections to writing and file a special bill of exceptions. The bill of exceptions was filed which contained the written objections of the appellant to the order of the court. The objections recite that one Luegers was the sheriff of Dubois County and the prosecuting witness at that time and verified the affidavit upon which appellant was prosecuted; that under the statute appellant and his counsel were entitled to a list of names in order to investigate the environment, character, reputation, and standing of each person so drawn, and to aid them in a proper voir dire examination of the jurors; that appellant was prejudiced further by the fact that the sheriff, as the prosecuting witness, had possession of the names, and thereby was given undue advantage of the appellant; that it was the duty of the clerk to draw the names of the special venire from the jury box publicly, and to immediately record the names in the order book and certify thereto.
The appellant's motion for a new trial, part of which is set out in appellant's brief, is as follows:
'1--Irregularities in the proceeding of the Court and order of the Court and abuse of discretion by which the defendant was prevented from having a fair trial in this, to-wit:
The state contends that the appellant has failed to comply with the statute by not setting out in his brief either the motion for a new trial or the substance thereof. The quotation above given clearly indicates that appellant sufficiently complied with the statute by giving the substance of the only question which he presents for consideration on appeal.
Grand and petit jurors are drawn pursuant to Section 4-3306 Burns' Ind.St.1933, Sec. 1270, Baldwin's Ind.St.1934, which provides that, at 10 o'clock A. M. on the Monday preceding the commencement of any term of any criminal court, or circuit court where there is no criminal court, the clerk shall produce the box containing the names of jurors, open the same in his office and publicly draw the grand and petit jury, and at the time 'enter a list of the names so drawn upon the orderbook of the court and annex his certificate of the fact.'
Provision is made by Section 4-3309, Burns' Ind.St.1933, Sec. 1271 Baldwin's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cross v. State, 1276S424
......228] selected and requiring the commissioners to select a jury in the proper statutory method. This is the law under Fenwick, supra, and its progeny. See Sturrock v. State, (1951) 229 Ind. 161, 96 N.E.2d 226; Anderson v. State, (1941) 218 Ind. 299, 32 N.E.2d 705; Souerdike v. State, (1938) 214 Ind. 523, 15 N.E.2d 379; Kark v. Central Greyhound Lines, (1949) 119 Ind.App. 303, 85 N.E.2d 277. Appellant argues that he did not discover the problem until four or five months after the trial, when the question was raised in another unrelated case. When the ......
-
Anderson v. State
...... and that two of the names drawn were of. [32 N.E.2d 708] . persons who had been active in a movement to call this grand. jury to investigate the matters in which the specific. indictments were returned. . . Souerdike. v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 523, 15 N.E.2d 379, also cited. by appellant, involved the drawing of a petit jury and it is. shown that the court ordered a secret drawing of a special. venire especially directing the clerk, commissioners and the. sheriff, who was the prosecuting witness, that the ......
-
Anderson v. State, 27451.
...a movement to call this grand jury to investigate the matters in which the specific indictments were returned. Souerdike v. State, 1938, 214 Ind. 523, 15 N.E.2d 379, also cited by appellant, involved the drawing of a petit jury and it is shown that the court ordered a secret drawing of a sp......
-
Kark v. Central Greyhound Lines
...... . . The. foregoing provisions of the statute were construed in the. case of Wehrs v. State, 1892, 132 Ind. 157, 161,. 163, 31 N.E. 779, 781. The Supreme Court held a deposition. may be taken under the statute although at the time it is. ...However,. it is well settled that a party may waive the provisions of. these statutes. Souerdike et al. v. State of. Indiana, 1938, 214 Ind. 523, 527, 15 N.E.2d 379; 31. Am.Jur. (Jury), p. 647, § 119; 50 C.J.S., Juries, § 251b,. page 1012. ......