Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 01 July 1908
• Docket Number: No. 21,079.,21,079.
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

170 Ind. 644

85 N.E. 349

WILLIAMS

v.STATE.

No. 21,079.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

July 1, 1908.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vanderburgh County; L. A. Rasch, Judge.

Minerva Williams was convicted of aiding and abetting one Wesley Williams in the killing of James Lee, and she appeals. Affirmed.

F. B. Posey, for appellant. James Bingham, Alex. G. Cavins, Ed. M. White, and Henry M. Dowling, for the State.

HADLEY, J.

Appellant was indicted with Wesley and Jonah Williams and found guilty of aiding and abetting the said Wesley in the murder of James Leigh. Each of the parties named had a separate trial and was found guilty of murder in the first degree and sentenced to imprisonment for life. See Jonah Williams v. State (this term) 85 N. E. 113, and Wesley Williams v. State (this term) 85 N. E. 350.

The action of the court in overruling her motion for a new trial is the only assignment appellant has made in this court. She demanded a new trial on the ground that the verdict of the jury was not sustained by sufficient evidence, that the same was contrary to law, for newly discovered evidence, for error of the court in giving certain instructions, and for overruling her motion for leave to make her statement of facts to the jury, immediately after the statement by the prosecuting attorney, and before the evidence of the state had begun. Should appellant's attorney have been permitted to state the facts of her case to the jury immediately following the statement by the prosecuting attorney?

Relating to the trial in criminal cases, it is provided, in Acts 1905, p. 641, c. 169, § 260 (Burns' Ann. St. 1908, § 2136), as follows: “The jury being impaneled and sworn, the trial shall proceed in the following manner: (1) The prosecuting attorney must state the case of the prosecution, and briefly state the evidence by which he expects to support it; and he shall then offer the evidence in support of the prosecution. (2) The defendant, or his counsel, may then state his defense, and offer evidence in support thereof.” It is thus seen that the orderly way of proceeding in criminal trials, as prescribed by the Legislature, is for the accused to remain silent until the prosecuting attorney has not only informed him and the jury of the facts he expects to prove, but also until after he has offered all the original evidence he has in support of such facts. The defendant being thus reliably advised, in advance, of the nature and character of the evidence to be brought against him, may shape his defense by the knowledge thus obtained, to his great advantage, in many cases. This order is clearly in line with the requirements of the Constitution, because unquestionably fair to the accused. It has been held by this court to be error to require a defendant, over his objection, to state his case to the jury before the evidence on the part of the state had been introduced. Willey v. State, 52 Ind. 421.The statute relating to the procedure in criminal cases was, when the Willey Case was decided, substantially the same as the one now in force and set out above. The holding in that case was clearly correct, as the ruling of the circuit court deprived the defendant, over his protest, of a valuable right awarded by the statute. If, however, the court had in that case but granted the request of the defendant to make his statement, immediately following the prosecuting attorney, the case and the ruling would have been different. The law seldom requires a person to avail himself of his personal rights, and, the Legislature having defined the order of trial in criminal cases in a way manifestly favorable to the defendant, if the latter, for any cause, requests a change in the statutory order, the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, reviewable only for abuse, grant the change. Willey v. State, 52 Ind. 421; Gillett, Crim. Law (2d Ed.) 889; Cannon v. People, 141 Ill. 270, 276, 30 N. E. 1027;State v. Bateman, 52 Iowa, 604, 3 N. W. 622; 12 Cyc. p. 571, B. But the defendant has the absolute right to present his defense in the order fixed by the statute. While in this...