State v. Clark, No. 30784

Docket NºNo. 30784
Citation217 N.E.2d 588, 247 Ind. 490
Case DateJune 22, 1966
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 588

217 N.E.2d 588
247 Ind. 490
STATE of Indiana, Appellant,
v.
Teddy Ray CLARK, Appellee.
No. 30784.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 22, 1966.

[247 IND 492]

Page 589

John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., Douglas B. McFadden, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellant.

Hall Cochrane, Howard DeTrude, Indianapolis, for appellee.

RAKESTRAW, Chief Justice.

In the court below there were several criminal affidavits on file against the appellee. Two of them involved charges brought under the act commonly known as the 'Offenses Against Property Act.' (Acts 1963 (Spec.Sess.) ch. 10, §§ 1--15, being Burns' Ind.Stat.Anno. §§ 10--3028--10--3041 (1965 Supp.).)

After preliminary arraignment proceedings, the court appointed a pauper attorney for the defendant, and proceeded to tell him in open court:

'No, this is a straight affidavit, uttering a forged instrument, theft, obtaining unauthorized control of property, which the court's opinion is that the Statute is unconstitutional, and the Court would appreciate it if you would raise the question.'

Pauper counsel proceeded to file a motion to quash. After some further proceedings, the two cases were consolidated for trial.

There is considerable additional matter in the record. Apparently the defense counsel did not understand exactly what sort of motion the court wished to have filed, and what the court wished to be incorporated in the motion. There was a session at which the court and the pauper counsel both had to be advised of the requirement that a memorandum accompany the motion to quash.

[247 IND 493] After the motion to quash had been duly prepared and submitted to the satisfaction of the court, the court proceeded to sustain the motion as to both charges as follows:

'By reason of Article 4, Sections 19 and 20, Article, 1, Sections 13 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution and the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution the Acts of 1963 (Special Sessions of the Indiana General Assembly) Chapter 10, Sections 1--15 as applied to this defendant are void and the defendant's motions to quash are sustained.'

The two affidavits involved are relatively simple. In one affidavit, the appellant is charged with obtaining money by deception by issuing a check parportedly drawn by another with knowledge that the check would not be honored and with the intent of permanently depriving the owner of the money. In the second affidavit he is charged with exerting unauthorized control over an automobile with the intent to deprive the owner of it permanently. No question is raised as to the certainty of the charges presented.

Page 590

From an examination of the record, there is some question whether the constitutionality of the statute involved is being raised by a party affected. It appears to be a question raised on the personal whim of the judge in the court below. Neither the appellee nor his counsel have exhibited a clear cut understanding of what issues are being raised and why they are being arised. However, since the constitutionality of the question has been raised, it seems advisable to discuss that question in so far as necessary to dispose of the cases here involved.

In discussing the constitutionality of any act of the legislature, it is necessary that certain basic principles be reviewed. The first of these is that there is a strong presumption favoring constitutionality of an act of the legislature.

'The power to declare a statute void is to be exercised with the utmost care, and after all doubts as to its constitutionality[247 IND 494] have been removed. So, it is the general rule that a statute on the books at any given time, not judicially declared unconstitutional or invalid, is presumed to be valid until the contrary clearly appears; he who raises the question of constitutionality must assume the burden of making the unconstitutionality clearly appear by establishing invalidating facts.

The court will indulge all reasonable presumptions in favor of an attacked statute, and the invalidity of the statute must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Every reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the statute's validity. * * *' 5 I.L.R. Constitutional Law § 39, pp. 314--316.

It is also a fundamental proposition that the person attacking the constitutionality of a statute must have his rights adversely affected by the particular act and the particular section of the act which he is attacking.

'As a general rule, the constitutionality of a statute or other governmental action is to be considered in the light of the standing of the party who seeks to raise the question and its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 practice notes
  • Indiana State Fair Bd. v. Hockey Corp. of America, No. 2--1273A269
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 Agosto 1975
    ...Ind., 330 N.E.2d 92. See also State ex rel. Haberkorn v. DeKalb Circuit Court (1968), 251 Ind. 283, 241 N.E.2d 62; State v. Clark (1966), 247 Ind. 490, 217 N.E.2d Page 108 A. 'UNFAIR COMPETITION' Historically, the common law tort of 'unfair competition' was considered a subspecies of the cl......
  • Cheaney v. State, No. 1171S321
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 24 Julio 1972
    ...the abortion was impoverished we have serious doubts that appellant has standing to assert this argument. See State v. Clark (1966), 247 Ind. 490, 217 N.E.2d 588; United States v. Raines, supra. However, assuming she does have standing we find no merit in this contention. Were we to accept ......
  • Taxpayers Lobby of Indiana, Inc. v. Orr, No. 374S67
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 6 Junio 1974
    ...Ind., 280 N.E.2d 581. A court may not hold an act unconstitutional except on the clearest showing of invalidity. State v. Clark (1966), 247 Ind. 490, 217 N.E.2d 588. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the statute. Wright-Bachman, Inc. v. Hodnett (1956), 235 Ind. 307, 133 N.E.2d 713. Fi......
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 19 Mayo 2015
    ...trans. denied ). First, within constitutional limitations, our Legislature has the inherent power to define crimes, State v. Clark, 247 Ind. 490, 495, 217 N.E.2d 588, 590–91 (1966), including when a crime may subsist for a definite period or cover successive, similar occurrences.5 Second, N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
22 cases
  • Indiana State Fair Bd. v. Hockey Corp. of America, No. 2--1273A269
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 28 Agosto 1975
    ...Ind., 330 N.E.2d 92. See also State ex rel. Haberkorn v. DeKalb Circuit Court (1968), 251 Ind. 283, 241 N.E.2d 62; State v. Clark (1966), 247 Ind. 490, 217 N.E.2d Page 108 A. 'UNFAIR COMPETITION' Historically, the common law tort of 'unfair competition' was considered a subspecies of the cl......
  • Cheaney v. State, No. 1171S321
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 24 Julio 1972
    ...the abortion was impoverished we have serious doubts that appellant has standing to assert this argument. See State v. Clark (1966), 247 Ind. 490, 217 N.E.2d 588; United States v. Raines, supra. However, assuming she does have standing we find no merit in this contention. Were we to accept ......
  • Taxpayers Lobby of Indiana, Inc. v. Orr, No. 374S67
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 6 Junio 1974
    ...Ind., 280 N.E.2d 581. A court may not hold an act unconstitutional except on the clearest showing of invalidity. State v. Clark (1966), 247 Ind. 490, 217 N.E.2d 588. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the statute. Wright-Bachman, Inc. v. Hodnett (1956), 235 Ind. 307, 133 N.E.2d 713. Fi......
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 19 Mayo 2015
    ...trans. denied ). First, within constitutional limitations, our Legislature has the inherent power to define crimes, State v. Clark, 247 Ind. 490, 495, 217 N.E.2d 588, 590–91 (1966), including when a crime may subsist for a definite period or cover successive, similar occurrences.5 Second, N......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT