Wasy v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 29361,29361 |
| Citation | 138 N.E.2d 1,236 Ind. 215 |
| Parties | Maria WASY, Appellant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Robert H. Moore and Tetek & Tomsich, Gary, for appellant.
Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Richard M. Givan, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.
The appellant claims she did not receive a fair and impartial trial mainly because of certain alleged improper and highly prejudicial remarks made by the prosecuting attorney, and published over the radio and newspaper, which statement came to the knowledge of the jurors who tried her case. There are other alleged errors coupled with this which are discussed below.
The appellant was charged by affidavit with performing an illegal abortion. A jury found the appellant guilty; she was fined $1,000, and sentenced to three to fourteen years in the Indiana Women's Prison. On the first day of the trial during the selection of the jury, the prosecuting attorney in open court outside of the presence of the jury, charged that someone on behalf of the defense had tried to bribe a witness, one Dr. Daniel T. Ramker, and that he was offered $5,000 to throw the case against the state of Indiana. The prosecuting attorney stated he did not know who had made the attempt to bribe, but intended to carry on an investigation. Radio broadcasting stations announced over the air as a part of the newscast that day, regularly given, this statement of an attempt to bribe. Two or three of the newspapers carried the same items in more detail in their issues prominently quoting the prosecuting attorney with reference to the bribery charge.
In the motion for a new trial later filed, the additional facts were alleged that the bailiff permitted the jurors to have in the jury room before the jury had been sworn, one of the articles cut from the newspaper regarding the alleged attempt to bribe which was shown to other jurors.
The court overruled a motion to withdraw case from trial, and for a continuance based on the alleged inflammatory statements and publications. The motion for a new trial, among other things, also sets forth that the bailiff of the court exhibited his prejudice against the defendant, and advised and counseled with prosecuting attorney during the trial in the presence of the jury; that the bailiff in calling the names to fill the panel did not take them in the regular order, and in manner listed as drawn from the jury box. When the appellant's motion was filed, the bailiff made the statement in the presence of the court, 'The motion should be overruled.' Complaint is made also of the fact that prosecuting attorney attempted by questioning over the objection of the appellant to bring in hearsay conversation of a witness concerning another alleged abortion case resulting in death, and which the court permitted to be related.
The specifications and allegations of fact supported by appellant in the motion for a continuance, and in the motion for a new trial, stood undenied and uncontradicted at the time the court ruled thereon.
The facts show in this case that after the prosecuting attorney made these charges of bribery in open court in the case then proceeding to trial, he took no further action of any sort based upon such charges. He did not support his statement by any request to the court for a citation for contempt against any one, nor for the calling of a grand jury to consider such a criminal offense; nor did he file any affidavit charging anyone with such an offense. What could have been the purpose or motive of the prosecuting attorney in publicly making such a statement? When the witness, Dr. Ramker, was on the stand the prosecuting attorney made no inquiry of him in any fashion with reference to any such alleged attempt to bribe by the appellant, or anyone on behalf of appellant. We can find no plausible or reasonable excuse for a prosecuting attorney making such a charge in open court, and we are compelled to draw the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeLisle v. Rivers
...People v. McKay, 37 Cal.2d 792, 236 P.2d 145 (Cal.1951); People v. Hryciuk, 5 Ill.2d 176, 125 N.E.2d 61 (Ill.1954); Wasy v. State, 236 Ind. 215, 138 N.E.2d 1 (Ind.1956); Johnson Newspaper Corp. v. Clary, 167 A.D.2d 968, 562 N.Y.S.2d 307 ...
-
Fair v. State
...we have found no Indiana cases directly on this point, the underlying principle has been accepted in this State. In Wasy v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 215, 138 N.E.2d 1, this Court 'A prosecuting attorney certainly has a duty to present the state's strongest case. In doing so, however, he is no......
-
Lynk v. State
...denial of the motion for mistrial. Appellant relies on the cases of Adler v. State, (1961) 242 Ind. 9, 175 N.E.2d 358; Wasy v. State, (1957) 236 Ind. 215, 138 N.E.2d 1; Sylvester v. State, (1933) 205 Ind. 628, 187 N.E. 669. In these cases the trial prosecutor placed irrelevant and highly in......
-
Ray v. State
...of his contention Ray relies upon Turner v. State of Louisiana (1965), 379 U.S. 466, 85 S.Ct. 546, 13 L.Ed.2d 424 and Wasy v. State (1956), 236 Ind. 215, 138 N.E.2d 1. In Turner the United States Supreme Court reversed the defendant's murder conviction because two key witnesses, both deputy......