Taylor v. State
| Decision Date | 12 December 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 30788,30788 |
| Parties | Raymond TAYLOR, Fred Cooper, Jr., Appellants, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Richard E. Kreegar, Anderson, for Taylor.
Vincent Kelley, of Kelley, and Arnold & Kelley, Anderson, for Cooper, Jr.
John J. Dillon, Atty. Gen., R. Robert Yeager, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Appellants Fred Cooper, Jr., and Raymond Taylor were charged jointly and tried together. They were both charged by amended affidavit in two counts, Count One being the crime of robbery and Count Two being the crime of inflicting personal injury in the perpetration of a robbery. The appellant Cooper was found guilty of robbery--Count One--while appellant Taylor was found guilty of both Count One and Count Two. They were sentenced accordingly.
This criminal trial took a number of weeks and the transcript and briefs are quite voluminous. A number of contentions are made with reference to claimed errors arising during the trial to the prejudice of the appellants. Among these are errors claimed by reason of the introduction in evidence of a statement referred to as Exhibit 20, made by appellant Cooper in his own handwriting, which he signed and then crossed out his signature thereon. This statement, with two other statements, were obtained from his during a period of questioning from the time of the alleged crime on March 17, 1961 to April 8, 1961. During this period he was arrested and released a number of times. During the trial, the court held a hearing as to the admissibility of this exhibit and referred to it as a 'confession.' The appellant Taylor claims that he was not present during this hearing and that the statement finally admitted was prejudicial to him, in violation of his constitutional rights.
Additionally, appellant Cooper claims the evidence does not show his participation in the crime. We need not attempt a solution of all of these questions raised and many others, since this case must go back for retrial, but need only discuss one of these many claimed errors, which compels a reversal in this case.
One of the specifications in the motion for a new trial reads as follows:
'During the cross examination of Rico Taylor, a witness called by defendant, Raymond Taylor, the Trial Court permitted the State of Indiana to introduce State's Exhibit 75, the same being a knife which the State contended was used by the witness, Rico Taylor, and upon the person of one Eddia Lee Morrow for which the said Rico Taylor was charged with assault and battery * * *.'
The record shows...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duncan v. State
...foundation for doing so in the examination of the witness he seeks to impeach. As stated by our Supreme Court in Taylor v. State (1967), 249 Ind. 238, 241, 231 N.E.2d 507, 508: 'Laying the foundation for impeachment is an exacting procedure. The questions must be specific as to time, place ......
- Dell v. State
-
Carter v. State, 2--1075A288
...which includes questions which are 'specific as to time, place and other substantial matters involved . . ..' Taylor v. State (1967) 249 Ind. 238 at 241, 231 N.E.2d 507 at 508. Recently however, this court has acknowledged a relaxation of that rigid requirement. See Duncan v. State (3rd Dis......