State v. Gullion, No. 54A04-8903-CR-69

Docket NºNo. 54A04-8903-CR-69
Citation546 N.E.2d 121
Case DateNovember 20, 1989
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 121

546 N.E.2d 121
STATE of Indiana, Appellant,
v.
Scott GULLION, Appellee.
No. 54A04-8903-CR-69.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
Fourth District.
Nov. 20, 1989.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, Wayne E. Steele, Pros. Atty., Crawfordsville, for appellant.

William A. Goebel, Goebel, McGaughey, Sosbe & Tribbett, Kurt R. Homann, Groves & Homann, Crawfordsville, for appellee.

CHEZEM, Presiding Judge.

Statement of the Case

The State of Indiana appeals the trial court's denial of the State's motion to

Page 122

amend the criminal information on the day before trial. We reverse and remand.

Issues

1. Whether Indiana Code 35-34-1-5(d) permits the court to allow the State to amend the information in a substantive manner after thirty (30) days prior to the omnibus date.

Statement of Facts

Defendant's child, Christopher Gullion, died on October 11, 1985. On November 12, 1986, the State filed an information charging Scott Gullion with Involuntary Manslaughter, Neglect of a Dependent Causing Serious Bodily Injury, and Battery Causing Serious Bodily Injury. The record shows that the court, the defendant, and the State considered this case to be of a complex nature. Defendant requested additional counsel and expert witnesses, which the court granted. Various motions cite the complexity of this case. On January 30, 1989, the State filed a motion to amend the information by adding count four, to wit:

Bob Peterman, being duly sworn upon his oath, says: He is informed and verily believes that at and in the County of Montgomery, State of Indiana, on the 11th day of October, 1985, one Scott Guillion did knowingly kill Christopher Gullion by placing his hand on the back of the head of Christopher Gullion and pushing Christopher Gullion's head face down into a mattress causing Christopher Gullion to suffocate and thereby causing Christopher Gullion to die. All of which is contrary to the form of the statute in such cases made and provided and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana.

The State also filed a motion in limine or, in the alternative, a motion to continue based on the fact that the defendant had just given to the State certain medical reports involving the care and treatment of Evelyn and Matthew Gullion and the relationship of sudden infant death syndrome to siblings on Thursday, January 26. The State requested the defendant be prohibited from introducing any evidence directly or indirectly during the trial of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Singleton v. State, No. 45A03-0712-PC-551.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 26, 2008
    ...420, 427 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. not sought; Todd v. State, 566 N.E.2d 67, 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. not sought; State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. not Again, the relevant inquiry when determining whether an attorney rendered deficient performance is whe......
  • Rita v. State, No. 71A03-9506-CR-185
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 18, 1996
    ...that the amendment was substantive and changed the Page 1207 theory of the case, we find no reversible error. In State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), the State made a substantive amendment by adding a fourth count after the time limit of I.C. § 35-34-1-5(b) had expired. On ap......
  • Fajardo v. State, No. 32S01-0606-CR-237.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 16, 2007
    ...1064-65 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. not sought; Todd v. State, 566 N.E.2d 67, 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. not sought; State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989), trans. not sought; and the memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals in the present 10. Examples of similar deci......
  • Leatherwood v. State, No. 32A05-0710-PC-573.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 7, 2008
    ...Tripp v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1061, 1064-65 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); Todd v. State, 566 N.E.2d 67, 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). This court's earlier ruling on the issue was only "erroneous" in light of jurisprudence that did not yet exist (and wou......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Singleton v. State, No. 45A03-0712-PC-551.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • June 26, 2008
    ...420, 427 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. not sought; Todd v. State, 566 N.E.2d 67, 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. not sought; State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), trans. not Again, the relevant inquiry when determining whether an attorney rendered deficient performance is whe......
  • Rita v. State, No. 71A03-9506-CR-185
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 18, 1996
    ...that the amendment was substantive and changed the Page 1207 theory of the case, we find no reversible error. In State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121 (Ind.Ct.App.1989), the State made a substantive amendment by adding a fourth count after the time limit of I.C. § 35-34-1-5(b) had expired. On ap......
  • Fajardo v. State, No. 32S01-0606-CR-237.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 16, 2007
    ...1064-65 (Ind.Ct.App.2000), trans. not sought; Todd v. State, 566 N.E.2d 67, 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1991), trans. not sought; State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App. 1989), trans. not sought; and the memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals in the present 10. Examples of similar deci......
  • Leatherwood v. State, No. 32A05-0710-PC-573.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • February 7, 2008
    ...Tripp v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1061, 1064-65 (Ind.Ct.App.2000); Todd v. State, 566 N.E.2d 67, 69 (Ind.Ct.App.1991); State v. Gullion, 546 N.E.2d 121, 122-23 (Ind.Ct.App.1989). This court's earlier ruling on the issue was only "erroneous" in light of jurisprudence that did not yet exist (and wou......
  • 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