Williams v. State, No. 1079S267

Docket NºNo. 1079S267
Citation273 Ind. 547, 406 N.E.2d 241
Case DateJune 26, 1980
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 241

406 N.E.2d 241
273 Ind. 547
Bill WILLIAMS, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 1079S267.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 26, 1980.

Page 242

George K. Shields, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Bruce W. Graham, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, Bill Williams, was convicted by a jury of rape, Ind.Code § 35-13-4-3 (Burns 1975) sodomy, Ind.Code § 35-1-89-1 (Burns 1975) and incest, Ind.Code § 35-1-82-1 (Burns 1975) in March, 1977. On October 17, 1978, this Court reversed the convictions and ordered a new trial because the final instructions were not read to the jury as requested by defendant. Williams v. State, (1978) Ind., 381 N.E.2d 458. After a retrial in April, 1979, on the same three charges, defendant was again convicted by a jury and later sentenced to life imprisonment for the rape, two to fourteen years for sodomy, and two to twenty-one years for incest. Defendant now appeals from his second trial and raises the following issues:

1. Whether there is sufficient evidence of every material element of the crimes of which he was convicted to support the verdict;

2. Whether he was denied his lawful presumption of innocence throughout the trial; and

3. Whether the trial court erred in admitting testimony allegedly inconsistent with defendant's alibi notice.

A summary of the facts from the record most favorable to the state shows that the victim, who was defendant's daughter, testified that she had been forced to have intercourse with defendant against her will on several occasions. She testified that she remembered one specific evening, August 13, 1976, when defendant forced her to commit sodomy and to have intercourse with him and threatened to smack her face if she did not comply. The victim was ten years old at that time. She remembered that date because she told a neighbor about this sexual abuse and the police came and took her and her brothers and sisters away three days later on August 16, 1976. One of the victim's sisters and one of her brothers also testified that they saw their father sexually abuse the victim.

Defendant took the stand in his own defense. He had submitted an alibi defense but then apparently abandoned it by admitting that he came home about 8:30 p. m. on August 13, 1976. He testified that when he came home on that date he cleaned up the house and washed dirty clothes, but he denied having sexual relations with his daughter.

Page 243

However, pictures of defendant's residence taken on August 16, 1976, [273 Ind. 549] revealed filthy living conditions and piles of dirty clothes lying all around.

I.

Defendant first contends that there is not sufficient evidence to support each element of the crimes with which he was charged. He specifically points to conflicts in the testimony...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Baxter v. Duckworth, Civ. No. S88-589.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • February 10, 1989
    ...alibi statute is not to compel the exclusion of evidence or mandate retrials for purely technical errors. Williams v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 547, 406 N.E.2d 241. The sanction for noncompliance by the defendant is designed to protect the State from fabrication of defenses and enable prosecut......
  • Baxter v. State, No. 385S77
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 25, 1988
    ...alibi statute is not to compel the exclusion of evidence or mandate retrials for purely technical errors. Williams v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 547, 406 N.E.2d 241. The sanction for non-compliance by the defendant is designed to protect the State from fabrication of defenses and enable prosecu......
  • Weekley v. State, No. 1-680A163
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 29, 1981
    ...is substantial evidence of probative value to support the verdict, the conviction will not be set aside. Williams v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 241; Brames v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d Viewed from the perspective of proper appellate review, it is clear the evidence is sufficient to......
  • Williams v. Duckworth, No. 84-368.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • February 1, 1985
    ...to the Supreme Court 601 F. Supp. 1458 of Indiana, the convictions were unanimously affirmed in a published opinion at Williams v. State, 273 Ind. 547, 406 N.E.2d 241 Petitioner next filed a post-conviction relief petition on September 16, 1980. A hearing was held on December 30, 1980 and M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Baxter v. Duckworth, Civ. No. S88-589.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • February 10, 1989
    ...alibi statute is not to compel the exclusion of evidence or mandate retrials for purely technical errors. Williams v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 547, 406 N.E.2d 241. The sanction for noncompliance by the defendant is designed to protect the State from fabrication of defenses and enable prosecut......
  • Baxter v. State, No. 385S77
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • April 25, 1988
    ...alibi statute is not to compel the exclusion of evidence or mandate retrials for purely technical errors. Williams v. State (1980), 273 Ind. 547, 406 N.E.2d 241. The sanction for non-compliance by the defendant is designed to protect the State from fabrication of defenses and enable prosecu......
  • Weekley v. State, No. 1-680A163
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • January 29, 1981
    ...is substantial evidence of probative value to support the verdict, the conviction will not be set aside. Williams v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d 241; Brames v. State, (1980) Ind., 406 N.E.2d Viewed from the perspective of proper appellate review, it is clear the evidence is sufficient to......
  • Williams v. Duckworth, No. 84-368.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court of Northern District of Indiana
    • February 1, 1985
    ...to the Supreme Court 601 F. Supp. 1458 of Indiana, the convictions were unanimously affirmed in a published opinion at Williams v. State, 273 Ind. 547, 406 N.E.2d 241 Petitioner next filed a post-conviction relief petition on September 16, 1980. A hearing was held on December 30, 1980 and M......
  • 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