White v. State, No. 29179

Docket NºNo. 29179
Citation234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705
Case DateApril 06, 1955
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 705

125 N.E.2d 705
234 Ind. 209
Clifford O. WHITE, Jr., Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 29179.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
April 6, 1955.

[234 Ind. 211] Hunter J. Von Leer, Terre Haute, J. L. Sullivan, Paris, Ill., for appellant.

Edwin K. Steers, Atty. Gen., Owen S. Boling, Richard M. Givan, Deputies Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ACHOR, Judge.

This is a prosecution for rape. Trial was by jury which returned a verdict of guilty.

The record in this case is replete with irregularities on the part of the prosecution. Some of these pertained to the admission of evidence regarding crimes currently having been committed in the neighborhood of the offense charged, but which were not involved in this action. There was a statement of dubious propriety in the State's opening statement relating to the appellant taking the witness stand, but most offensive were statements of the prosecutor in his final argument implying that appellant had committed other crimes (enumerating them), and that 'We have an affidavit on file against this man for robbery and it depends on the outcome of this case what we will do with that.'

The question is presented as to whether these irregularities were properly reserved and whether some of them may have been invited. Also, we have considered the possibility that such irregularities, although not made the subject of timely objection, may have presented a situation so prejudicial to the appellant that, on motion properly presented, it became the duty of the court to withdraw the case from the jury and grant [234 Ind. 212] a new trial. However, we have concluded that the judgment must be reversed and a new trial granted because of an erroneous instruction. Therefore, our opinion will be based upon that issue. We nevertheless express our strong disapproval of the abuses in which the prosecutor indulged in his apparent zeal to obtain a conviction.

The court's preliminary instruction No. 6, which was read both prior to the admission of evidence and again at the conclusion of the trial, is as follows:

'The Court instructs you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that the law which clothes every person accused of crime with the presumption of innocence and imposes upon the State the burden of establishing his guilt beyond a reasonable

Page 706

doubt is not intended to aid any one who is in fact guilty of crime to escape, but it is a humane provision of the law, intended so far as human agencies can, to guard against the danger of any innocent person being unjustly punished. And by a reasonable doubt is not meant a whim or captious or speculative...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Burris v. State, No. 981
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 29, 1984
    ...subsidiary evidence. He claims that such instructions as this have been condemned by this Court and cites White v. State, (1955) 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705. Instruction 32 reads as It is necessary that every material element of the crime charged against the accused should be proved by the......
  • Stanger v. State, No. 32A01-8903-CR-00105
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 6, 1989
    ...and credibility of a confession between judge and jury. In Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 46 N.E. 127, overruled on other grounds, 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705, the appellant sought to have the court submit the competency of his written confession to the jury upon the ground that it ha......
  • Abel v. State, No. 1--175A15
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 16, 1975
    ...by our Supreme Court in Ringham v. State (1974), Ind., 308 N.E.2d 863, 867, where the court said: 'Appellant cites White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705, which holds that the use of the term 'subsidiary evidence' is ambiguous and could only serve to confuse the jury in the man......
  • Hunt v. State, No. 71A03-8906-CR-267
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 8, 1990
    ...directly related to the essential element but also evidence of subsidiary matters. [R. 77] Hunt argues, based upon White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705, that the substance of the tendered instruction was not covered by any other instructions and was critical to balance the co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Burris v. State, No. 981
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 29, 1984
    ...subsidiary evidence. He claims that such instructions as this have been condemned by this Court and cites White v. State, (1955) 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705. Instruction 32 reads as It is necessary that every material element of the crime charged against the accused should be proved by the......
  • Stanger v. State, No. 32A01-8903-CR-00105
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 6, 1989
    ...and credibility of a confession between judge and jury. In Hauk v. State (1897), 148 Ind. 238, 46 N.E. 127, overruled on other grounds, 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705, the appellant sought to have the court submit the competency of his written confession to the jury upon the ground that it ha......
  • Abel v. State, No. 1--175A15
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 16, 1975
    ...by our Supreme Court in Ringham v. State (1974), Ind., 308 N.E.2d 863, 867, where the court said: 'Appellant cites White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705, which holds that the use of the term 'subsidiary evidence' is ambiguous and could only serve to confuse the jury in the man......
  • Hunt v. State, No. 71A03-8906-CR-267
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 8, 1990
    ...directly related to the essential element but also evidence of subsidiary matters. [R. 77] Hunt argues, based upon White v. State (1955), 234 Ind. 209, 125 N.E.2d 705, that the substance of the tendered instruction was not covered by any other instructions and was critical to balance the co......
  • 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