Woodley v. State

• Decision Date: 16 June 1949
• Docket Number: No. 28461.,28461.
• Parties: WOODLEY v. STATE.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

227 Ind. 407

86 N.E.2d 529

WOODLEY

v.STATE.

No. 28461.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

June 16, 1949.

Eugene Woodley was convicted of rape and he appeals.

Judgment reversed.Appeal from Allen Circuit Court; William H. Schannen, Judge.

Lloyd S. Hartzler, and James P. Murphy, Fort Wayne, for appellant.

Cleon H. Foust, Attorney General, Frank E. Coughlin, First Deputy Attorney General, and Merl M. Wall, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.

EMMERT, Judge.

The appellant was found guilty by a jury of rape, and after the overruling of the motion for new trial, was sentenced by the court to be imprisoned for a term not less than two nor more than twenty-one years, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted. The errors presented by appellant's brief are the rulings of the trial court in permitting the state to cross-examine appellant concerning delinquency charges against him, and the disposition of the juvenile court concerning such charges.

When a child is brought before the juvenile court charged with being delinquent, dependent or neglected, the proceedings are not public. Section 9-3215, Burns 1942 Replacement, Supplement, Acts 1945, ch. 356, § 15, p. 1724, provides that, ‘The disposition of a child or any evidence given in the court shall not be admissible as evidence against the child in any case or proceeding in any other court * * *.’ The wisdom of such policy for the broad exclusion of evidence which would be otherwise admissible in other proceedings has been seriously questioned. Wigmore, Evidence (3rd Ed.) § 196(c), § 1040(6). But this policy of exclusion is one for legislative determination, and we are not at liberty to write a new statute.

The mere fact that a criminal charge has been made, which is not followed by a conviction, is not relevant to affect the credibility of a witness upon cross-examination. Petro v. State, 1933, 204 Ind. 401, 184 N.E. 710;Hengstler v. State, 1934, 207 Ind. 28, 189 N.E. 623. Nor independently of the juvenile statute would evidence of a charge being made in a juvenile court not followed by any adjudication thereon be relevant to discredit the testimony of a witness. The evidence in this appeal shows that the state, over proper objections by appellant, cross-examined him as to the disposition of him made by the juvenile court following the finding and judgment of that court upon the charge made, and he was compelled to testify concerning evidence given before the juvenile court.

Concerning a similar statute of Ohio, the Supreme Court of that state in Malone v. State, 1936, 130 Ohio St. 443, 200 N.E. 473, 478, in holding it reversible error to permit cross-examination of an accused concerning his juvenile delinquencies, said: ‘Under no circumstances could ...