Williams v. State, No. 870S173

Docket NºNo. 870S173
Citation260 Ind. 543, 297 N.E.2d 805
Case DateJune 29, 1973
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 805

297 N.E.2d 805
260 Ind. 543
Cecil L. WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 870S173.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 29, 1973.

[260 Ind. 544] Andrew H. Wright, Salem, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Robert F. Colker, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.

Appellant was charged by affidavit with the crime of forcible rape. He was tried by jury in the Washington Circuit Court before the Honorable Charles Ratts. On January 27, 1970, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and thereafter the Appellant was sentenced to imprisonment in the Indiana State Reformatory for a period of not less than two nor more than twenty one years and was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings. On February

Page 806

13, 1970, the Appellant filed a Motion for New Trial. This appeal arises from the denial of that motion. We have jurisdiction of this appeal, which would otherwise be in the Court of Appeals, for the reason that Appellant's original appellate counsel was unable to prosecute the appeal due to illness, and Appellant was granted leave to proceed under Post Conviction Remedy Rule 2(B) on September 29, 1970. In the interim, Appellant's [260 Ind. 545] present counsel was appointed and this court reinstated the original order granting leave on March 12, 1973.

The Appellant presents three issues for review which are as follows:

1. Whether the partially corroborated testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficient to prove the Appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. Whether the admission of testimony by the Washington County Sheriff to the effect that he had arrested Appellant at the Cook County, Illinois, jail constitutes reversible error.

3. Whether the admission of testimony regarding certain activities of the Appellant prior to the alleged offense constitutes reversible error.

When the sufficiency of evidence is raised on appeal, this court will neither weigh the evidence nor determine the credibility of witnesses. Only that evidence most favorable to the state and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom will be considered, and if, from that viewpoint, there is substantial evidence of probative value to establish every material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict will not be disturbed. Dunn v. State (1973), Ind., 293 N.E.2d 32; Lee v. State (1972), Ind., 286 N.E.2d 840; Capps v. State (1972), Ind., 282 N.E.2d 833. The evidence most favorable to the Appellee discloses the following facts.

In the very early morning hours of June 19, 1968, the Appellant drove his automobile to the home of Mr. and Mrs. Laurel Nicholson which was located on a small farm near Salem, Indiana. He briefly spoke with Mr. Nicholson who was just leaving for work. The two men left simultaneously in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 practice notes
  • Snyder v. State, No. 3-477A97
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Agosto 1979
    ...legal authority in support of the assignment of error as required by AP 8.3(A)(7). As was so aptly stated in Williams v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 543 at 547, 548, 297 N.E.2d 805 at "Appellant's additional allegations of error are presented with absolutely no legal argument or citation of......
  • Miresso v. State, No. 2--873A189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 20 Febrero 1975
    ...shown to have injured the complaining party, or it will not warrant a new trial.' (Emphasis supplied.) Williams v. State (1973), Ind., 297 N.E.2d 805; Hitch v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 783; Layton v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 205, 240 N.E.2d 489; Johnson v. State (1972), Ind., 278 N.E.2d......
  • Southern, School Bldgs., Inc. v. Loew Elec., Inc., No. 3-879A241
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 9 Julio 1980
    ...a waiver of its right to have this Court consider its contention. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3; Williams v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 543, 297 N.E.2d 805, 807; State of Fla. ex rel. O'Malley v. Department of Ins. (1973), 155 Ind.App. 168, 291 N.E.2d 907, Punitive Damages As its f......
  • Thomas v. State, No. 2--1073A211
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 Julio 1975
    ...under Indiana Rules of Procedure A.P. 8.3(A)(7). 268 N.E.2d at 302. [164 Ind.App. 654] Page 330 See also, Williams v. State (1973), Ind., 297 N.E.2d 805, 807; Beech v. State (1974), Ind.App., 319 N.E.2d 678, 681--682; Maynard v. State (1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 200, 203--204; Matthew v. S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
54 cases
  • Snyder v. State, No. 3-477A97
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 30 Agosto 1979
    ...legal authority in support of the assignment of error as required by AP 8.3(A)(7). As was so aptly stated in Williams v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 543 at 547, 548, 297 N.E.2d 805 at "Appellant's additional allegations of error are presented with absolutely no legal argument or citation of......
  • Miresso v. State, No. 2--873A189
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 20 Febrero 1975
    ...shown to have injured the complaining party, or it will not warrant a new trial.' (Emphasis supplied.) Williams v. State (1973), Ind., 297 N.E.2d 805; Hitch v. State (1972), Ind., 284 N.E.2d 783; Layton v. State (1968), 251 Ind. 205, 240 N.E.2d 489; Johnson v. State (1972), Ind., 278 N.E.2d......
  • Southern, School Bldgs., Inc. v. Loew Elec., Inc., No. 3-879A241
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 9 Julio 1980
    ...a waiver of its right to have this Court consider its contention. Ind.Rules of Procedure, Appellate Rule 8.3; Williams v. State (1973), 260 Ind. 543, 297 N.E.2d 805, 807; State of Fla. ex rel. O'Malley v. Department of Ins. (1973), 155 Ind.App. 168, 291 N.E.2d 907, Punitive Damages As its f......
  • Thomas v. State, No. 2--1073A211
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 Julio 1975
    ...under Indiana Rules of Procedure A.P. 8.3(A)(7). 268 N.E.2d at 302. [164 Ind.App. 654] Page 330 See also, Williams v. State (1973), Ind., 297 N.E.2d 805, 807; Beech v. State (1974), Ind.App., 319 N.E.2d 678, 681--682; Maynard v. State (1973), Ind.App., 301 N.E.2d 200, 203--204; Matthew v. S......
  • 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