Woodard v. State, No. 676S162

Docket NºNo. 676S162
Citation267 Ind. 19, 366 N.E.2d 1160
Case DateSeptember 06, 1977
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 1160

366 N.E.2d 1160
267 Ind. 19
Donald Eugene WOODARD, Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
No. 676S162.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Sept. 6, 1977.

[267 Ind. 20]

Page 1162

Keith A. Dilworth, Public Defender, Richmond, for appellant.

Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen., Daniel Lee Pflum, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

HUNTER, Justice.

The defendant, Donald Eugene Woodard, was charged by way of information with armed robbery. His case was tried before a jury which found him guilty and fixed his punishment of imprisonment at 18 years. The defendant's motion to correct errors was overruled, from which he appeals, raising the following issues:

1. Whether it was error for the prosecution to introduce evidence of another crime in its opening statement and its case-in-chief;

2. Whether there was prosecutorial misconduct during final argument;

3. Whether it was error for the trial court to refuse defendant's instructions on intoxication; and

4. Whether it was error to introduce certain items of physical evidence.

I.

During his opening statement, the prosecutor summarized the evidence he intended to produce. The armed robbery charged in this case occurred when the defendant and three other black men entered a Burger Chef restaurant in Richmond, Indiana, with guns, and took $718 and robbed each of the four persons who were there. Larry Smith's expected testimony is also summarized. Smith's car was taken from him at gunpoint in Dayton, Ohio, and he was locked in the trunk. On the road to Richmond he overheard certain conversations of the defendant relating to a proposed robbery of a Burger Chef. In Richmond, he declined to participate in the robbery and was not released from the trunk until the car was stopped by the Ohio State Police.

Defense counsel sought a mistrial at the conclusion of the prosecutor's statement, and at the time Smith's testimony was [267 Ind. 21] offered he objected that evidence or statements concerning the kidnapping were inadmissible.

It is true that evidence tending to show the commission of crimes, separate and distinct from the crime charged, is generally inadmissible to prove the guilt of the accused. But, evidence, which is otherwise relevant to the facts in issue, is not inadmissible despite its tendency to show guilt of another crime, especially if the two crimes are related. Maldonado v. State (1976), Ind., 355 N.E.2d 843.

"It is always proper to show that the instruments used in a crime were owned or possessed by the defendant. Corroborative evidence of how and where he obtained such instruments is clearly proper."

Byrd v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 255, 256, 204 N.E.2d 651, 651. Evidence is also admissible of "happenings near in time and place" which "complete the story of the crime on trial by proving its immediate context." Maldonado, supra ; McCormick, Evidence § 190 at 448 (2d ed. 1972).

Here, the evidence of kidnapping placed the testimony of Smith in its proper context and explained the defendant's possession of the car. As was stated by the prosecutor, "(I)t would be very difficult to leave the Jury with the impression that we have a man . . . in the trunk of an automobile at night and leave it to them to guess how in the heck he got there."

There was no error in the admission of this evidence.

II.

During final argument, the deputy prosecutor posed three questions for the

Page 1163

jury, which were objected to by defense counsel,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
40 practice notes
  • Kindred v. State, No. 285S67
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 8, 1988
    ...showing of chain of custody are not required for unique, non-fungible goods readily identified by a witness. Id; Woodard v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 19, 366 N.E.2d 1160. No hint of tampering existed in the instant case. Defendant's chain of custody argument is without Similarly, defendant's c......
  • Boyd v. State, No. 384
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1986
    ...by the police, and remained in a substantially unchanged position. This was sufficient for their admission. Woodard v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 19, 24, 366 N.E.2d 1160, Defendant further objected to the admission of items contained in a pillow case which he had taken to State's witnesses, amo......
  • Mack v. State, No. 3-1177A294
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 21, 1978
    ...despite its tendency to show guilt of another crime, particularly if the two crimes are related. Woodard v. State (1977), Ind., 366 N.E.2d 1160; Maldonado v. State, supra, 355 N.E.2d 843. In Byrd v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 255, 204 N.E.2d 651, the Supreme Court held that the trial court prop......
  • Wells v. State, No. 282S63
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1982
    ...crimes are related. Howell v. State, (1980) Ind., 413 N.E.2d 225; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269; Woodard v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 19, 366 N.E.2d 1160. Appellant claims the evidence of the other crime should have been excluded because an additional requirement in applying the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
40 cases
  • Kindred v. State, No. 285S67
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 8, 1988
    ...showing of chain of custody are not required for unique, non-fungible goods readily identified by a witness. Id; Woodard v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 19, 366 N.E.2d 1160. No hint of tampering existed in the instant case. Defendant's chain of custody argument is without Similarly, defendant's c......
  • Boyd v. State, No. 384
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 24, 1986
    ...by the police, and remained in a substantially unchanged position. This was sufficient for their admission. Woodard v. State (1977), 267 Ind. 19, 24, 366 N.E.2d 1160, Defendant further objected to the admission of items contained in a pillow case which he had taken to State's witnesses, amo......
  • Mack v. State, No. 3-1177A294
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • September 21, 1978
    ...despite its tendency to show guilt of another crime, particularly if the two crimes are related. Woodard v. State (1977), Ind., 366 N.E.2d 1160; Maldonado v. State, supra, 355 N.E.2d 843. In Byrd v. State (1965), 246 Ind. 255, 204 N.E.2d 651, the Supreme Court held that the trial court prop......
  • Wells v. State, No. 282S63
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 12, 1982
    ...crimes are related. Howell v. State, (1980) Ind., 413 N.E.2d 225; Porter v. State, (1979) Ind., 397 N.E.2d 269; Woodard v. State, (1977) 267 Ind. 19, 366 N.E.2d 1160. Appellant claims the evidence of the other crime should have been excluded because an additional requirement in applying the......
  • 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