Amos W. Jackson

The case concerned a school corporation's use of eminent domain to condemn land owned by a trust, with the condemnation action filed in 1965 based on a general resolution for school purposes even though the corporation ultimately built a junior high school on different property. After prior appeals on related issues, the landowners filed additional objections in 1969 arguing that changed circumstances made continuation of the action improper. The trial court overruled the objections following an evidentiary hearing, and the appellate court affirmed that ruling on the grounds that evidence supported the conclusion that the school board had not acted arbitrarily or unlawfully and that appellate courts presume the correctness of trial court decisions supported by the record.

property

In Alcorn v. State, the appellant was tried and convicted on three counts of second-degree burglary after a bench trial in which the court found him guilty of breaking and entering three business premises and stealing items including pastries, liquor, and tools. The sole issue on appeal was whether the trial court erred in overruling the motion for new trial based on the admission of evidence seized from the defendant's car after he was stopped for a traffic violation. The majority held that the officer's use of a flashlight to observe the items on the floor of the back seat did not constitute a search, that the evidence was in plain view, and that it was properly admitted to sustain the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

In Tibbs v. State, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of robbery and inflicting injury during a robbery based on an incident in which he and others forcibly took a watch from the victim using violence, including striking him and causing a cut on his arm. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment on both counts. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the robbery conviction, finding sufficient evidence that the defendant aided in the unlawful taking by violence or putting the victim in fear, and held that accessories may be convicted as principals under state law. The court reversed the injury-during-robbery conviction and remanded for resentencing on the robbery count, reasoning that the record contained no evidence of probative value showing that the defendant inflicted the injury with a knife or other dangerous weapon.

criminal law

In Reed v. State, Curtiss Reed was convicted by a jury of assault and battery with intent to kill after he shot Charles Dale with a shotgun during a dispute at Reed's apartment involving Reed's girlfriend. The trial court sentenced Reed to two to fourteen years in prison. On appeal, Reed challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the required touching and intent to kill, as well as the failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that Reed's statements after the shooting established intent, that pellets from the shotgun satisfied the battery element, and that self-defense was not supported because the victim was not shown to be the aggressor. The court also noted that the jury-instruction issue had not been preserved in the motion for new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Glover v. State, the appellant was charged with second-degree burglary for breaking into the Panke Machinery Corporation building with intent to steal property. After a bench trial, the court convicted him based on accomplice testimony describing the break-in and corroborating evidence including the sale of a stolen calculator from the premises, then sentenced him to two to five years. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the evidence was sufficient to establish each element of the crime under the statute and that accomplice testimony is competent and may support a conviction even if uncorroborated, provided it proves guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while declining to reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Anthony Edward Graham, who was charged and convicted of uttering a forged instrument after presenting a stolen $145 check at a liquor store; the owner recognized it as forged, alerted police, and no transaction occurred. Graham waived a jury trial, was found guilty by the court, and sentenced to two to fourteen years in prison. On appeal, he argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove delivery with intent to defraud, as the check was unendorsed and uncashed, and that the sentence violated state and federal constitutional prohibitions on disproportionate or cruel punishment. The court acknowledged weaknesses in the evidence and the severity of the penalty relative to other offenses but affirmed the conviction and sentence on the basis of stare decisis.

criminal law