Stroud v. State

• Decision Date: 06 July 1983
• Docket Number: No. 481S92,481S92
• Citation: 450 N.E.2d 992
• Parties: Leonard E. STROUD and Walter W. Weddle, Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 992

450 N.E.2d 992

Leonard E. STROUD and Walter W. Weddle, Appellants, v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee.

No. 481S92.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

July 6, 1983.

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender of Indiana, Indianapolis, Kurt A. Young, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, Speedway, for appellants.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., of Ind., Palmer K. Ward, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

PIVARNIK, Justice.

Defendants-appellantsLeonard E. Stroud and Walter W. Weddle were convicted of Attempted Robbery, Ind.Code Sec. 35-41-5-1(BurnsRepl.1979) and Ind.Code Sec. 35-42-5-1(BurnsRepl.1979), at the conclusion of a jury trial in Jackson Circuit Court on October 30, 1980.The jury found defendant Stroud guilty of attempted robbery while armed with a deadly weapon, resulting in bodily injury to another person, a class A felony, and he was sentenced to a term of twenty (20) years.The jury found Weddle guilty of attempted robbery by using or threatening the use of force on another person or by putting another person in fear, a class C felony.He was subsequently sentenced to a term of four (4) years.The two appeals were consolidated for review by this Court.

Four issues of error are raised by the defendants, concerning: 1) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion for mistrial during voir dire of the jury; 2) whether the trial court erred in denying the defendants' motion in limine; 3) whether the trial court erred by refusing to accept a plea bargain agreement entered into by defendant Stroud and the State; and, 4) whether there was sufficient evidence to convict the defendants of attempted robbery.

The evidence most favorable to the State reveals that on May 10, 1980, Arthur Motsinger and his son were fishing on the bank of the White River in Jackson County, Indiana.Defendants Stroud and Weddle, along with some other people, were on a nearby hill when they saw the Motsingers fishing.Stroud ordered Tim Lee, one of the other individuals, to go down the hill and take the Motsingers' money.Lee failed to get the money and the Motsingers tried to leave the area.Before he could escape in his car, Arthur Motsinger was hit in the face by Stroud and also sustained an injury to his right side.There also was testimony that the defendants struck Robby Jenkins in the face after taking bicycles from Tim Lee and Larry Lacy.This incident took place prior to the attempted robbery.

I

During voir dire examination of the jury, one of the prospective jurors, Louise Fleming, was asked if she knew either of the defendants and she stated she"knew the Stroud boy."Mrs. Fleming stated she did not know Stroud personally but her daughters had contacts with him.She was then asked if this fact would in any way influence her role as a juror and she said that it would because she would not be able to fairly and impartially hear the case in regard to defendant Stroud.Mrs. Fleming said she would not be able to put this aside in her deliberations because she feared for the safety of her daughters.The judge asked her to explain that statement and she replied: "Well they do, they have to keep in constant dealings with the Strouds, is all, and trouble, and I don't want, I don't want to say too much about it."The trial judge then excused this juror for cause.Defendants Stroud and Weddle moved for a mistrial so that they could be tried from a new panel of jurors since they felt that Mrs. Fleming's statement had so tainted the rest of the jurors that they would not receive a fair and impartial trial.The trial court denied the motion.No admonishments were given to the remaining jurors by the trial court and no questions were asked of the remaining prospective jurors as to whether or not they were influenced or prejudiced by the statements of this one juror.

The defendants contend that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to select a new panel of prospective jurors, or, in the alternative, admonish the remaining prospective jurors and question them whether they were influenced by the statements they heard.On the other hand, the State contends that the trial court did not commit error by denying the relief sought by the defendants since there was no impropriety concerning the voir dire because no substantive facts of the case or evidentiary matters were placed before the jurors by this one prospective juror.Mrs. Fleming was merely giving her reasons for feeling that she did not want to be involved in the defendants' trial.Therefore, the State contends that the defendants were not placed in a position of substantial peril since Mrs. Fleming's comments were elicited in the voir dire's properly controlled atmosphere which determines whether a challenge for cause exists or whether a peremptory challenge should be used.McFarland v. State, (1979)271 Ind. 105, 110, 390 N.E.2d 989, 992.

The trial court has broad discretionary powers to regulate the voir dire's form and substance.Wickliffe v. State, (1981) Ind., 424 N.E.2d 1007, 1008;Roberts v. State, (1978)268 Ind. 127, 130, 373 N.E.2d 1103, 1106.The decision to grant or deny a mistrial rests largely within the trial court's sound discretion and this Court will reverse that decision only when it is shown that the defendants were placed in a position of great peril to which they should not have been subjected.Morgan v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 964, 967;Chandler v. State, (1981) Ind., 419 N.E.2d 142, 145.The defendants cite us to Lindsey v. State, (1973)260 Ind. 351, 295 N.E.2d 819.The facts in Lindsey are different from the facts before us in the instant case.In Lindsey, during the trial, newspaper articles were printed which indicated that defendant Lindsey had been involved in previous crimes, one of them being rape.This Court reversed Lindsey's conviction, holding that when there was a suggestion to the trial court that there had been improper and prejudicial publicity, the defendant was entitled to have the jury polled immediately to determine whether any juror had been exposed to the article.Id. at 356, 295 N.E.2d at 822.

A similar question was again presented to this Court in Bradberry v. State, (1977)266 Ind. 530, 364 N.E.2d 1183.There, one of the prospective jurors on voir dire had stated he had read about the case in the newspapers and formed an opinion but did not say what that opinion was.The trial judge, who was conducting the voir dire, dismissed the juror for cause.Other jurors who read about the case replied that they had formed no opinion about the case.The prospective jurors made no statements concerning the facts of the crime or what any of the newspaper articles had said.In all, there were only general statements that there had been a newspaper story about the crime.Citing Lindsey, supra, we found in Bradberry that the general references made by the prospective jurors in the presence of the other jurors did not prejudice them to such an extent that any action by the trial court was necessary.Id. at 536, 364 N.E.2d at 1187.We find the same to be true here.We do not recommend the procedure followed by the trial judge in pressing the prospective juror for reasons in holding a prior opinion about the case.Neither the trial court nor counsel for the parties should cause a juror to express any facts or reasons for having the opinion he or she does if...