Van Deveer v. State, 470S96

Decision Date04 June 1971
Docket NumberNo. 470S96,470S96
Citation269 N.E.2d 865,256 Ind. 509
PartiesJohn VAN DEVEER, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
CourtIndiana Supreme Court

Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Darrel K. Diamond, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.

This is an appeal from the Marion Criminal Court, Division 2, wherein the appellant was found guilty as charged of the crime of bribery.

Appellant first contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. The statute under which the appellant was charged, Burns' Indiana Stat.Anno. (1970 Cum.Supp.) § 10--601, I.C.1971, 35--1--90--4, reads in part:

'* * * whoever, being a member, officer, clerk or employee of the general assembly, or state or other officer, agent or employee of this state, or person holding any office of trust or profit under the laws of this state, or any employee of any municipal corporation or any political subdivision of this state, or any officer entrusted with the administration of justice or prosecuting attorney, either before or after his election, qualification, appointment or employment, solicits or accepts any such money, promise or valuable thing, to influence him with respect to his official duty, or employment, or to influence his action, vote, opinion or judgment in any matter pending or that might legally come before him * * *.'

Considering the testimony of James Guerrettaz, a witness for the State, we find sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found the appellant guilty of bribery under the above quoted statute. Guerrettaz testified (concerning his initial conversation with the appellant):

'Well, we had a rather lengthy conversation. I would say we were there for some hour to hour and a half, and during the course of this he continued to explain to me that his salary, he thought, was less than it should be or less in a living ways and that it had to have other compensation and that he felt the fair way to go at it was to, that we should match the permit fee, that the inspector should receive this amount, the same as the permit, and that way it would bring his salary up to a living wage and we'd get along a little better and that'd take care of it.'

The appellant next contends that the court committed prejudicial error in permitting the State to introduce into evidence the testimony of four witnesses concerning alleged acts of bribery on the part of the defendant in 1968 and 1969. The rule concerning proof of similar crimes is well stated in 1 Ewbanks Indiana Criminal Law, Symmes Ed., § 384, p. 236, which we quoted approvingly in Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind 659, 234 N.E.2d 629:

'Proof by the state of other crimes than the one for which the defendant is on trial is generally not admissible. Such evidence is admissible only where the crime charged has been established and the motive, malice intent or guilty knowledge of the defendant is an issue. Evidence of other crimes than the one charged is also admissible where the evidence discloses a common...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Gubitz v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • March 1, 1977
    ...88 N.E. 689." (Quoting from Smith v. State (1939), 215 Ind. 629, at 634--35, 21 N.E.2d 709, at 711--12.) See also, Vandeveer v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 509, 269 N.E.2d 865; Kindred v. State (1970), 254 Ind. 127, 258 N.E.2d 411; Miller v. State (1975), Ind.App., 338 N.E.2d 733; Samuels v. Sta......
  • McConnell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • June 30, 1982
    ...exceptions where the evidence is to show intent, motive, purpose, identification, or a common scheme or plan. Vandeveer v. State, (1971) 256 Ind. 509, 269 N.E.2d 865." Id. at 591, 335 N.E.2d at This wallet, with the items therein, was on the seat beside the defendant. In the same billfold w......
  • Hartwell v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • December 10, 1974
    ...the purpose for its introduction is to show intent, motive, identity, guilty knowledge, or a common scheme or plan. Van Deveer v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 509, 269 N.E.2d 865; Zimmerman v. State (1921), 190 Ind. 537, 130 N.E. 235. 'It is the probative value of such evidence to prove the crime......
  • Coker v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 4, 1980
    ...when the crime charged has been established and the motive or guilty knowledge of the accused is an issue. Van de veer v. State (1971), 256 Ind. 509, 269 N.E.2d 865; Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659, 234 N.E.2d The evidence of Coker's prior activities tends to show his guilty knowledge. ......
  • 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