Sutton v. State

Decision Date25 October 1957
Docket NumberNo. 0-487,0-487
Citation237 Ind. 305,145 N.E.2d 425
PartiesPaul SUTTON, Robert Sutton, Petitioners, v. STATE of Indiana, Respondent.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Paul Sutton and Robert Sutton, pro se.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., of Indiana, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On August 26, 1957, appellants filed in this court, pro se, a petition entitled, 'Belated Appeal From the Grant County Circuit Court.'

It appears from the petition that sometime prior to May 1, 1957, the petitioners were tried by a jury in the Grant Circuit Court and found guilty; that they were represented by a court appointed lawyer who filed a motion for a new trial, which was overruled on May 1, 1957.Apparently no appeal was taken from this judgment.

If the petition herein is to be considered as one for an order of the Supreme Court authorizing them to take a belated appeal, one of the essentials for granting such a petition is that it state a prima facie case showing merit in the proposed appeal.Kirkland v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 450, 452, 134 N.E.2d 223;Miller v. State, Ind.1957, 142 N.E.2d 432; Enlow, Parker v. State, 1956, 235 Ind. 697, 131 N.E.2d 466.

The petition fails to show in what manner the verdict of the jury is contrary to law, except that the court committed error in permitting a juror to sit after he was challenged, and that the court committed error in admitting the tape recording of defendant--Paul Sutton's confession.

The challenge to the juror was based upon the allegation '* * * that said juror had a conversation with a key witness who claims that he saw a 12 year old girl forced into a car containing the appellants[petitioners] herein.'It must be presumed that said juror was challenged for cause as provided in subsection two of Acts 1905, ch. 169, § 230, p. 584, being § 9-1504, second, Burns' 1956 Replacement.

Appellants have failed to show that their peremptory challenges had been exhausted at the time the juror was challenged for cause, and in such case the alleged error, if any, is waived.Rock v. State, 1916, 185 Ind. 51, 53, 110 N.E. 212.

The next and only other error assigned is based upon the alleged error of the trial court in admitting in evidence, over the objection of the petitioner--Paul Sutton, a tape recording of an oral confession made in the prosecutor's presence.

It is generally recognized that a sound recording of a confession is admissible in evidence upon proper identification and authentication.State v. Perkins, 1947, 355 Mo. 851, 198 S.W.2d 704, 168 A.L.R. 920;Annotation, 168 A.L.R. 927;22 C.J.S.Criminal Law§ 731, p. 1249.

This court has held that voluntary admissions made by an accused are admissible in evidence.Rohlfing v. State, 1952, 230 Ind. 236, 244, 102 N.E.2d 199, 763.

...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
16 cases
  • Whiting v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • June 19, 2012
    ...denial of a challenge for cause only if the defendant complies with the exhaustion rule. E.g., id. at 1235;Sutton v. State, 237 Ind. 305, 307, 145 N.E.2d 425, 426 (1957) (per curiam). But, even where a defendant preserves a claim by striking the challenged juror peremptorily, reversible err......
  • Sutton v. Lash
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • May 22, 1978
    ...rejected the petition, holding that a requisite prima facie case showing merit in the proposed appeal was lacking. Sutton v. State, 237 Ind. 308, 145 N.E.2d 425 (1957). In regard to a request for their transcript, the court Since the State has created the office of Public Defender to repres......
  • Morse v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • March 5, 1981
    ...that at the time she challenged the juror for cause, she had exhausted her peremptory challenges. Sutton v. State, (1957) 237 Ind. 305, 307, 145 N.E.2d 425, 426 (per curiam); Rock v. State, (1915) 185 Ind. 51, 53, 110 N.E. 212. She attempts to satisfy that burden in two ways. She urges us t......
  • Brackens v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • July 1, 1985
    ...does not exhaust his peremptory challenges. Foresta v. State (1980), 274 Ind. 658, 660, 413 N.E.2d 889, 890; Sutton v. State (1957), 237 Ind. 305, 307, 145 N.E.2d 425, 426. ISSUE Defendant claims that the trial court committed reversible error when it allowed the State to present evidence o......
  • Get Started for Free

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