State ex rel. White v. Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, No. 3.
| Decision Date | 27 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 579S119,579S119 |
| Citation | 391 N.E.2d 596,271 Ind. 174 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana ex rel. Walter Raymond WHITE, Relator, v. The MARION SUPERIOR COURT, CRIMINAL DIVISION, NO. 3, and the Honorable Charles C. Daugherty, Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert D. Hollingsworth, Indianapolis, for relator.
Stephen Goldsmith, Pros. Atty., Bobby Jay Small, Deputy Pros. Atty., Indianapolis, for respondents.
On April 24, 1979, this Court conducted a hearing on a temporary writ of mandate and prohibition. The matter was taken under advisement and on April 27, the petition was unanimously denied. We now deny the application for a permanent writ.
Relator Walter R. White was charged with two counts of murder in the Marion Superior Court. On March 12, 1979, a jury was impanelled and the trial was commenced. Two days of testimony and evidence followed. The final witness on the second day of trial was Dr. Josefino C. Aguilar, a pathologist at Wishard Memorial Hospital. Dr. Aguilar had performed the autopsies on the two purported victims. During his testimony, Dr. Aguilar refused, in the presence of the jury, to answer questions propounded by the deputy prosecutor on one occasion, by defense counsel on four occasions and by the court on two occasions. The next morning, March 14, Dr. Aguilar was recalled to the stand. When the court ordered him to answer questions propounded by the court, he twice refused. Aguilar stated that the reason for his refusal was that the "Prosecutor's Office, time and, time again, refuse to give the courtesy that they would give an ordinary expert witness . . . ." Hence, he stated, he would testify only as to facts and would not give his expert opinion on any issues. Thereupon, the court found him in direct contempt of court, levied a fine of $50.00 and sentenced him to five days in jail. Following this series of events, all in the presence of the jury, the court declared a mistrial in view of the adverse impact on the jury. Relator now requests this Court to order the Marion Superior Court to discharge him on the ground that a retrial would violate the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitutions and IC § 35-41-4-3 (Burns 1979).
Original actions are viewed with extreme disfavor by this Court. State ex rel. Gibson General Hospital v. Warrick Cir. Ct. (1966) 247 Ind. 240, 214 N.E.2d 655. Writs of mandate and prohibition will be issued only where the trial court has an absolute duty to act or refrain from acting. State ex rel. Wm. H. Block Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Marion Cty. (1943) 221 Ind. 228, 47 N.E.2d 139. Where the matter lies within the discretion of the trial court, this Court will not consider applications for writs of mandate and prohibition since the legal remedy of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. State
...make clear whether the State moved for a mistrial or whether the trial court granted it sua sponte. See State ex rel. White v. Marion Superior Court, 271 Ind. 174, 391 N.E.2d 596 (1979). ...
-
White v. State
...of the trial court and is not a proper subject for a writ of mandate or prohibition since the legal remedy on appeal is adequate. 271 Ind. 174, 391 N.E.2d 596. Appellant also applied for relief by filing a habeas corpus action in the Southern District of the United States District Court in ......
-
State ex rel. Pickard v. Superior Court of Marion County, Civil Div., Room No. 3
...extreme disfavor by this Court. State ex rel. Neese v. Montgomery Circuit Court, (1980) Ind., 399 N.E.2d 375; State ex rel. White v. Marion Sup.Ct., (1979) Ind., 391 N.E.2d 596; State ex rel. Sendak v. Marion Sup.Ct., (1978) 268 Ind. 3, 373 N.E.2d 145. Writs of prohibition and mandate will ......
-
Armbruster v. Tran
...Moreover, it is up to the trial court to determine the orderly procedure of a trial. State ex rel. White v. Marion Sup. Ct., Crim. Div. No. 3 , 271 Ind. 174, 176–77, 391 N.E.2d 596, 597 (1979). Trial courts have the authority to enforce their pre-trial orders and parties have the right to i......