State v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 24 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 781S196,781S196 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant (Plaintiff below), v. Steven M. BOWMAN, Appellee (Defendant below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
This cause is before us on the petition to transfer of Steven Bowman, wherein he seeks review of the Court of Appeals' opinion found at State v. Bowman, (1981) Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 360. We hereby grant transfer, vacate the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
A Hancock County grand jury indicted Steven M. Bowman for involuntary manslaughter, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-4 (Burns 1979 Repl.), criminal recklessness, Ind.Code § 35-42-2-2(b) (Burns 1979 Repl.), and reckless homicide, Ind.Code § 35-42-1-5 (Burns 1979 Repl.). The charges stemmed from Bowman's involvement in a fatal automobile accident in Hancock County on August 20, 1978.
Bowman filed a motion to dismiss the three-count indictment. He based his motion on the fact that unauthorized persons (two police officers) were present during the grand jury proceedings. Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted Bowman's motion and dismissed the indictment. The court subsequently denied the state's motion to reinstate the charges and its motion to correct errors. The state appealed and presented the following issue for consideration by the Court of Appeals:
Whether the unauthorized presence of two police officers during the grand jury proceedings prejudiced Bowman's substantial rights and warranted dismissal of the indictment.
The Court of Appeals concluded that no prejudice to Bowman's substantial rights was demonstrated by the evidence. The trial court was consequently ordered to reinstate the indictment.
As the Court of Appeals noted, there is no question that the presence of the police officers during the grand jury proceedings was unauthorized and improper. Ind.Code § 35-1-15-23 (Burns 1979 Repl.); Ind.Code § 35-1-15-10 (Burns 1979 Repl.); Ind.Code § 35-1-15-16 (Burns 1979 Repl.); Fair v. State, (1977) 266 Ind. 380, 364 N.E.2d 1007; Rennert v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 274, 329 N.E.2d 595; State v. Bates, (1897) 148 Ind. 610, 48 N.E. 2. Shattuck v. State, (1858) 11 Ind. 473. As the state has argued, however, that fact by itself does not warrant dismissal of the indictment. For as this Court reiterated the rule in Fair v. State, supra :
"It is the rule that the presence of a stranger in the grand jury room during the investigation of a criminal charge is not sufficient to abate an indictment, unless it appears that the person indicted was thereby injured in his substantial rights." 266 Ind. at 390, 364 N.E.2d at 1012 quoting State v. Bates, (1897) 148 Ind. 610, 48 N.E. 2.
To determine if the trial court erred in ruling that Bowman's substantial rights were prejudiced by the unauthorized presence of the two police officers, we must examine the evidence produced at the hearing on the motion to dismiss and the record of the grand jury proceedings.
The evidence reveals that the officers who attended the grand jury proceedings were James Bradbury, a Hancock County Deputy Sheriff, and Paul Weiler, an Indiana State Police Officer. Bradbury had been called to the scene of the automobile accident. He enlisted Weiler's help in a continuing investigation of the events and circumstances surrounding the accident; the investigation eventually culminated in the decision to convene a grand jury to determine whether Bowman should be prosecuted for his role in the mishap.
Prior to the grand jury proceedings, the two officers interviewed most of the witnesses who testified before the grand jury. Both Bradbury and Weiler discovered they were acquainted with many of the witnesses. Bradbury knew over half of them, several of whom he counted as friends. Weiler stated that he was personal friends with "some," and had a "speaking acquaintance" with a "large percentage" of the witnesses.
Weiler was the first witness called to testify before the grand jury. He appeared in civilian dress and was introduced as the state police investigator who had assisted Bradbury in the investigation of the auto accident at issue. Following his testimony, the prosecutor requested permission from the grand jury for Weiler to remain throughout the proceedings:
Bradbury was the second witness called to testify. He also appeared in civilian clothes and was introduced as the deputy sheriff who investigated the accident. Likewise, at the close of his testimony, the prosecutor obtained permission from the grand jury for Bradbury to remain in the courtroom. The record reads:
BY MR. DOBBINS:
The evidence reveals Bradbury remained beyond Scorchy Woods's testimony for the duration of the remaining witnesses' testimony.
The reason for the officers' continued presence is unclear. The prosecuting attorney explained at one point that the two men were present to be informed of the evidence so as to facilitate their "continuing investigation"; at another juncture, he stated that they were merely present to "assist" him throughout the proceedings. Weiler indicated he was present to "assist" the prosecutor; Bradbury stated only that prior to the proceedings, he and the prosecutor had discussed the possibility of him remaining in the courtroom. Both acknowledged that they "probably" used information garnered at the proceedings to facilitate their continuing investigation.
The evidence indicates that throughout the remaining witnesses' testimony, the two officers sat side-by-side at the prosecutor's table, in full view of the jury and witnesses. Bradbury indicated that they were seated approximately ten feet from the nearest grand juror; a juror, however, testified that the two men were seated only two feet from the nearest juror. From their position, they occasionally handed exhibits to the prosecutor. On several occasions, they conferred with him on testimony and questioning of witnesses. Communications between the prosecutor and the policemen were conducted in hushed tones or through notes. The jurors indicated they did not overhear any of these conversations.
The jurors testified they fully understood that the officers were the chief investigators of the auto accident at issue. They stated that they would sometimes refer questions to the officers via the prosecutor, who would in turn relay the answers to the jury. These exchanges, according to the testimony of the jurors, sometimes occurred after witnesses had completed their testimony and left the courtroom.
Both Bradbury and Weiler testified that they did not take notes during the testimony; a grand juror, however, testified that the two men did take notes. Finally, it was uncontradicted that the officers did not put questions directly to the witnesses and that the two men, as well as the prosecutor, were not present while the jury deliberated.
At the evidentiary hearing on Bowman's motion to dismiss, each of the six jurors stated that the presence of the officers had not influenced their ultimate decision. One juror equivocated; she stated she did not know whether their presence had affected her judgment in some way.
Based on this evidence, the trial court found the unauthorized presence of the two police officers had prejudiced the substantial rights of Bowman. As the Court of Appeals recognized, the trial court's determination involves a question of fact. Consequently, it can be set aside only if clearly erroneous as unsupported by the facts and circumstances together with any reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Lee v. State, (1979) Ind., 392 N.E.2d 470.
Viewed from this perspective, the unusual circumstances present here and the reasonable inferences that can be drawn therefrom support the trial court's conclusion. Were it otherwise, the purpose as well as the letter of the statute violated would be vitiated.
In Rennert v. State, (1975) 263 Ind. 274, 329 N.E.2d 595, this Court noted the reasons for the statutory limitation on those...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Averhart v. State
...anyone besides the prosecuting attorney participated in the proceedings, nor that witnesses were oppressed in any manner. State v. Bowman, (1981) Ind., 423 N.E.2d 605. The only allegation is that certain evidence was irrelevant or prejudicial and led to a lack of impartiality on the part of......
-
Hood v. State
...Other states require prejudice to the defendant. Commonwealth v. Levinson, 239 Pa.Super. 387, 362 A.2d 1080, 1089 (1976); State v. Bowman, 423 N.E.2d 605 (Ind.1981); Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Co., 360 Mass. 188, 275 N.E.2d 33, 45 (1971). As many states, including Mississippi, have ......
-
Dwire v. State
... ... Numerous cases have held that investigators, law clerks, and police officers are unauthorized persons. Moseley v. State, 256 Ark. 716, 719, 510 S.W.2d 298, 300 (1974); State v. Pacific Concrete ... and Rock Co., 57 Haw. 574, 575-76, 560 P.2d 1309, 1310 (1977); State v. Bowman, 423 N.E.2d 605, 606 (Ind.1981); State v. Revere, 232 La. 184, 199, 94 So.2d 25, 31 (1957); Commonwealth v. Pezzano, 387 Mass. 69, 72-75, 438 N.E.2d 841, 843-45 (1982); Davis v. Traub, 90 N.M. 498, 500-501, 565 P.2d 1015, 1017-18 (1977) ... Shamla was not an attorney for the ... ...
-
Terry v. State
...to abate an indictment, unless it appears that the person indicted was thereby injured in his substantial rights." State v. Bowman (1981), Ind., 423 N.E.2d 605, 606 (citing State v. Bates (1897), 148 Ind. 610, 48 N.E. 2). The issue of prejudice to substantial rights involves a factual deter......