Wilson v. State, No. 769

Docket NºNo. 769
Citation253 Ind. 585, 255 N.E.2d 817
Case DateMarch 05, 1970

Page 817

255 N.E.2d 817
253 Ind. 585
Gerald WILSON, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 769 S 146.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
March 5, 1970.

[253 Ind. 586]

Page 818

Frederick J. Graf, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Aaron T. Jahr, Robert F. Hassett, Deputy Attys. Gen., for appellee.

ARTERBURN, Judge.

Appellant was charged in an indictment with kidnap and rape. Trial by jury resulted in a conviction on each count. Various alleged errors are urged upon us. They will be dealt with as they are presented.

[253 Ind. 587] Appellant first contends there is insufficient evidence to support the jurys' finding of guilty. Appellant does not point out wherein he believes the evidence is insufficient but contents himself with this very broad and general assertion. We believe the argument has no basis in fact. The statutes pertinent to the charges herein involved read as follows:

Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--2901. 'Kidnapping.--Whoever kidnaps, or forcibly or fraudulently carries off or decoys from any place within this state, or arrests or imprisons any person, with the intention of having such person carried away from any place within this state, unless it be in pursuance of the laws of this state or of the United States, is guilty of kidnapping, and, on conviction,

Page 819

shall be imprisoned in the state prison during life.'

Burns' Ind.Stat.Ann. § 10--4201. 'Rape--Penalty.--Whoever has carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly against her will, or of a female child under the age of sixteen (16) years * * * is guilty of rape, and on conviction shall be imprisoned not less than two (2) years nor more than twenty-one (21) years * * *'

The record reveals that as the prosecutrix was getting out of her automobile, to enter her apartment, the appellant forced her at knife-point back into the car. He then proceeded to drive the car to the Southport Bridge in Marion County. He had the knife at her side all the while. Upon descending to the banks of the White River appellant told the victim not to scream and he would not hurt her. She refused to disrobe. Appellant then pulled her dress down around her shoulders and pulled up her skirt. He forced her to lie down at knife-point. Appellant then had intercourse with the prosecutrix and tried to strangle her for her failure to cooperate. Upon completion of the attack appellant said he was going to detain the prosecutrix for several weeks. Appellant was finally conviced to return the prosecutrix to her apartment.

We find it difficult to imagine wherein appellant believes the evidence fails to support the charges and findings. To the contrary, the record is replete with substantial evidence of [253 Ind. 588] probative value to support the findings of the jury. Bush v. State (1968), Ind., 37 N.E.2d 584.

Appellant next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to strike certain evidence and testimony relating to identification of appellant as the perpetrator of the crimes. We first note that appellant failed to make any motion to suppress or timely object to the evidence and therefore the issue is not saved on appeal. The evidence discloses that on November 26, 1967, the prosecutrix was kidnapped and raped. The following day she gave the police a detailed dscription of her assailant, including his size, clothing, voice and physical features. She was shown many pictures of sex offenders. She did not identify any of them as her assailant. Because of the description she gave of her assailant she was taken on to the Johnson County Jail on December 2, 1967, to see whether she could make an identification of a prisoner. As she entered the jailhouse she saw a drivers license on a table. The license had a picture of the appellant on it. The prosecutrix immediately said, 'That's him'. The prosecutrix previously had said that her assailant told her he had just arrived from Colorado. The license was a Colorado license. When the prosecutrix saw appellant she identified him as her assailant. At the time he turned away from her in an attempt to hide his face.

There was no question in the prosecutrix's mind as to the identity of her assailant. She stated she was with the appellant for about one (1) hour. He talked to her freely and made no attempt to conceal his identity. He attempted to persuade her to have another rendezvous with him, but to no avail. She had ample opportunity to take notice of his clothing and physical characteristics. This is not a case of a witness merely getting a fleeting glimpse of a fleeing suspect. The prosecutrix testified as follows:

Q. Now your testimony this afternoon, is this from your recollection of this event in identifying the defendant, I mean the rape and kidnapping?

[253 Ind. 589] A. Yes, sir.

Q. What is the fact as to how you have been able to sleep since this occurred?

objection overruled)

Q. Do you remember the question?

A. Yes, sir. I don't sleep very well. As far as forgetting what he looked like, I don't think I could.

Page 820

Q. Do you dream about it?

A. Constantly. I have nightmares.

Q. In these dreams what do you see?

(objection overruled)

A. I have dreams about this defendant coming at me with a knife and I don't think I would ever...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 practice notes
  • State v. Salamon, No. 17610.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 1 juillet 2008
    ...State v. Padilla, 106 Ariz. 230, 232, 474 P.2d 821 (1970); Ellis v. State, 211 Ga.App. 605, 608, 440 S.E.2d 235 (1994); Wilson v. State, 253 Ind. 585, 592, 255 N.E.2d 817 (1970); State v. Smith, 228 Mont. 258, 263-64, 742 P.2d 451 (1987); State v. Maeder, 229 Neb. 568, 572-73, 428 N.W.2d 18......
  • People v. Adams, Docket No. 3940
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 24 juin 1971
    ...the scope of this opinion (see fn. 37). 37 See People v. Curtis (1969), 17 Mich.App. 720, 170 N.W.2d 249; Wilson v. State (1970), Ind., 255 N.E.2d 817, 821; Lester v. State (1970), 9 Md.App. 542, 266 A.2d 361; Samuels v. State, fn. 33 Supra. See, also, for example, the following California ......
  • Lindsey v. State, No. 172A29
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 23 mai 1972
    ...by the article. Page 861 The Appellant thereafter attempted to file numerous affidavits of jurors on this subject. In Wilson v. State, 253 Ind. 585, 255 N.E.2d 817, 821 (1970), it was 'A jury's verdict may not be impeached by testimony of the jurors. Even the slightest consideration of such......
  • State v. Reiman, Nos. 12451
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 31 octobre 1979
    ...only as an integral part of the crime of rape. Asportation or kidnapping is not necessarily involved in forcible rape. Wilson v. State, 253 Ind. 585, 255 N.E.2d Page 874 817 (1970); Samuels v. State, 253 A.2d 201 (Del.1969). Defendants Reiman and Graham were involved in the seizure and remo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
57 cases
  • State v. Salamon, No. 17610.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • 1 juillet 2008
    ...State v. Padilla, 106 Ariz. 230, 232, 474 P.2d 821 (1970); Ellis v. State, 211 Ga.App. 605, 608, 440 S.E.2d 235 (1994); Wilson v. State, 253 Ind. 585, 592, 255 N.E.2d 817 (1970); State v. Smith, 228 Mont. 258, 263-64, 742 P.2d 451 (1987); State v. Maeder, 229 Neb. 568, 572-73, 428 N.W.2d 18......
  • People v. Adams, Docket No. 3940
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • 24 juin 1971
    ...the scope of this opinion (see fn. 37). 37 See People v. Curtis (1969), 17 Mich.App. 720, 170 N.W.2d 249; Wilson v. State (1970), Ind., 255 N.E.2d 817, 821; Lester v. State (1970), 9 Md.App. 542, 266 A.2d 361; Samuels v. State, fn. 33 Supra. See, also, for example, the following California ......
  • Lindsey v. State, No. 172A29
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 23 mai 1972
    ...by the article. Page 861 The Appellant thereafter attempted to file numerous affidavits of jurors on this subject. In Wilson v. State, 253 Ind. 585, 255 N.E.2d 817, 821 (1970), it was 'A jury's verdict may not be impeached by testimony of the jurors. Even the slightest consideration of such......
  • State v. Reiman, Nos. 12451
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • 31 octobre 1979
    ...only as an integral part of the crime of rape. Asportation or kidnapping is not necessarily involved in forcible rape. Wilson v. State, 253 Ind. 585, 255 N.E.2d Page 874 817 (1970); Samuels v. State, 253 A.2d 201 (Del.1969). Defendants Reiman and Graham were involved in the seizure and remo......
  • 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