Thomas v. State
| Decision Date | 28 October 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-782A170,4-782A170 |
| Citation | 442 N.E.2d 700 |
| Parties | Sam THOMAS, Appellant (Petitioner Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Respondent Below). |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, Paul Levy, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., John Shuman, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.
After a trial by jury, defendant-appellant Sam Thomas was convicted of reckless homicide and sentenced to eight years. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Subsequently he filed a petition for post-conviction relief which was denied. From the denial of that petition, Thomas appeals.
We reverse.
The sole issue presented for review is whether the trial judge committed fundamental error at the trial of the criminal charge in giving the following instruction defining burden of proof:
The trial judge properly instructed the jury that the State had to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and properly defined reasonable doubt. However, when he sought to explain to the jury how they should weigh the evidence, the trial judge gave a civil instruction which describes the mechanism for determining when a fact is proven by a preponderance. The instruction was totally inapplicable to a criminal trial. It was clearly erroneous. However, since Thomas did not object to the instruction at trial, we must determine whether the giving of the instruction constituted "fundamental error."
"The 'fundamental error' doctrine permits a reviewing court to consider the merits of an improperly raised error if the reviewing court finds that 'the record reveals error so prejudicial to the rights of the Appellant that he could not have had a fair trial.' " Winston v. State, (1975) 165 Ind.App. 369, 373, 332 N.E.2d 229, 231. Cases in which fundamental error has been found have two principal characteristics. Pedigo v. State, (1980) Ind.App., 412 N.E.2d 132. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ingram v. State
...viewed as a whole must be devoid of any indicia of fairness. Williams, supra, 451 N.E.2d at 688-89 quoting Thomas v. State, (1982) Ind.App., 442 N.E.2d 700, 701. Finally, the alleged error must have resulted from the mistake or misconduct of the trial judge in the exercise of his own affirm......
-
Collins v. State
...Ind. 218, 409 N.E.2d 637. The error must be so prejudicial that the Defendant could not have received a fair trial. Thomas v. State (1982), Ind.App., 442 N.E.2d 700, 701. Collins has not demonstrated fundamental error on this Collins directs us to our supreme court's discussion of this very......
-
Hill v. State
...initial trial and despite the failure to lay claim in the first appeal. Reid v. State (1988), Ind., 529 N.E.2d 1309;. Thomas v. State (1982), Ind.App., 442 N.E.2d 700. Cf. Haggenjos v. State (1986), Ind., 493 N.E.2d Appellant filed her first post-conviction petition on July 21, 1982; the pe......
-
Williams v. State
...reasonable doubt. Williams now claims that this instruction misled the jury and was similar to the instruction given in Thomas v. State (1982), Ind.App., 442 N.E.2d 700. 1 In Thomas, the jury was " 'By burden of proof is meant that, considering all of the evidence in the cause, the evidence......