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

In Boss v. State, Earl Boss Jr. was charged with robbery after allegedly holding up a bakery clerk at gunpoint and taking $40 from the cash register. Following a jury trial, he was convicted and sentenced to ten to twenty-five years in prison. On appeal, Boss argued that the evidence was insufficient to prove he was the perpetrator or that the victim was placed in fear. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's multiple positive identifications of Boss, including at a lineup and in court, provided sufficient proof of identity, and that her testimony about pleading not to be shot while a gun was pointed at her met the legal standard for being put in fear.

criminal law

The case involved Albert Brown, who was charged with theft for knowingly obtaining control over stolen property (oil, transmission fluid, and cigarettes valued at $150) from a service station burglary. After a jury trial, Brown was convicted of the lesser offense of theft of property valued under $100 and sentenced to 60 days at the Indiana State Farm plus a $500 fine. Brown appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove he knew the goods were stolen when he purchased them and that the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial testimony about his other activities. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the seller's testimony provided probative evidence of Brown's knowledge and that any evidentiary objections were either waived for lack of timely objection or not preserved on the grounds raised at trial.

criminal lawprocedure

Nathaniel Jones was charged with robbery and armed robbery for an incident in which two men forcibly took money and items from a grocery store owner and employees at gunpoint. After withdrawing a guilty plea to the armed robbery count, which the state later dismissed, Jones was tried by jury on the robbery charge and convicted based on eyewitness identifications and circumstantial evidence linking him to the getaway car. He appealed, arguing that the verdict was not supported by sufficient evidence and was the result of prosecutorial misconduct regarding alleged threats to witnesses. The court affirmed the conviction, finding the identifications and other evidence adequate to support the jury's determination and concluding that any misconduct claims had been waived due to the absence of contemporaneous objections at trial.

criminal law

This case involved the construction of Gertrude Semmes's 1943 will, which named her sister Madeleine Walton as the primary residuary beneficiary and provided that any portion Walton elected not to take would go to Granville Martin Semmes; Walton had predeceased Semmes, who left no other direct heirs. The executor sought a judicial determination of how the estate should be distributed among the various claimants, including Semmes and Walton's daughters. The court held that the bequest to Walton lapsed entirely upon her death and that the will contained no effective gift-over or substitutionary provision for Semmes, so the entire estate passed by intestacy to Semmes's heirs at law. The reasoning centered on the plain language of the will, which conditioned any transfer to Semmes on Walton's affirmative election not to take the bequest, and on settled principles that a lapsed legacy passes by intestacy absent an express contrary intent.

family lawproperty

The case involved Frank Almon Buckley, who was charged with theft after taking $145 from a cash register at Great Scot Supermarket Conren, Inc. on February 26, 1969. He waived a jury trial, was found guilty by the court, and sentenced to one to ten years in prison. On appeal, Buckley argued that the state failed to prove the named owner of the property and that the amount stolen was not sufficiently established beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that testimony from store employees and witnesses, including the manager's identification of the corporation and verification of the missing funds, provided sufficient evidence of ownership and the value taken, with no conflicting proof on these material elements.

criminal lawprocedure

This case is an appeal from a jury conviction in Henry Superior Court for first-degree burglary and theft, based on an affidavit alleging that David Madden broke into Clifford Denney's home on January 6, 1968, and stole a .22 Ruger revolver. The trial court sentenced Madden to 10-20 years for burglary and one year for theft. On appeal, Madden raised multiple claims of error, including improper jury instructions. The court reversed the conviction and remanded for a new trial, holding that Final Instruction No. 14 improperly invaded the jury's exclusive role by directing that certain evidence was sufficient to establish criminal intent or create a presumption of guilt, in violation of precedents like Dedrick v. State, thereby depriving the defendant of the right to an independent jury determination of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; other issues were not addressed.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Danny Newman, who was separately tried and convicted by a jury of kidnapping and rape based on an indictment alleging that he and three others forcibly abducted and raped Donna Barton in 1967. Newman challenged the convictions on appeal, raising issues including the suppression of a pre-trial lineup identification conducted without counsel and the timeliness of his motion in arrest of judgment filed after sentencing. The court affirmed the convictions and sentences of life imprisonment for kidnapping and two to twenty-one years for rape. It held that the motion in arrest of judgment was untimely under established precedent requiring it to be filed before judgment, preventing consideration of the arguments on appeal for the first time, and that other procedural claims had not been properly preserved.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Harold F. DeVault, a township trustee, who was indicted along with others for conspiracy to commit forgery by creating a false poor relief purchase order to defraud the township. After a jury trial, DeVault was convicted and sentenced to prison and a fine. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the existence of a conspiracy, as the co-conspirators called by the state testified there was no agreement or involvement by DeVault, and the state was bound by that unchallenged testimony. The court found no evidence of any conspiracy beyond mere suspicion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Carrie Douglas's conviction in Marion County, Indiana, for committing rape while armed with a pistol, based on an indictment alleging forcible carnal knowledge of the victim against her will. The defendant raised issues including a notice of alibi, motions for disclosure of potentially exculpatory evidence and witness statements, challenges to lineup procedures, and sufficiency of the evidence at trial. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment under the relevant statutes and that the uncorroborated testimony of the victim was adequate under state law to sustain a rape conviction, with credibility and conflicting evidence matters left to the trier of fact. The court noted the trial court's handling of defense motions and witness testimony, including reopening the case for additional police testimony, did not constitute reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

In Adams v. State, appellants Richard Adams and Callahan Ware were charged by affidavit with robbery by putting a store manager in fear and taking $1,000 from a Seven-Eleven supermarket; they waived jury trial and were convicted after a bench trial. The trial court overruled their motions for separate trials, for the state to elect a specific offense, and for production of witness statements, as well as their motion for discharge based on a claimed material variance between the $1,000 alleged and the $160 in marked bills introduced into evidence. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the defendants had no right to the requested discovery of unused police notes, that the value of the property taken is not an element of robbery under the applicable statute, and that any variance was immaterial because the defendants were not misled.

criminal lawprocedure

In Seats v. State, the appellant was convicted of robbery by putting in fear after entering a gas station, conversing briefly with the attendant, and departing just before another man robbed the attendant at gunpoint of $107.88; the appellant was arrested minutes later in a car with the perpetrator and identified at the scene without counsel. The trial court overruled his motion for new trial, which alleged only insufficient evidence and that the verdict was contrary to law, and sentenced him to 10-25 years. On appeal, the court reversed the conviction and remanded with instructions to grant a new trial, reasoning that the wholly circumstantial evidence failed to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, such as the appellant simply buying a drink and later accepting a ride from someone who had committed a felony. The court declined to address the right-to-counsel claim because no objection was made at trial, no motion to strike was filed, and the issue was omitted from the new-trial motion.

criminal law

The case involved Vaughn Spright, who was charged with unlawful possession of marijuana under the 1935 Narcotic Act as amended. Following a trial, the court found him guilty and sentenced him to two to ten years in the Indiana State Reformatory. On appeal, Spright challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of his confession before proof of the corpus delicti, and the state's failure to call certain witnesses listed on the indictment. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that there was substantial evidence, including eyewitness testimony of Spright dropping the packages and his own admission, and that appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility.

criminal law

This case involved an appeal by Fayette Burns from his convictions for involuntary manslaughter and reckless homicide after a jury trial in the Dearborn Circuit Court. The charges stemmed from a March 1968 collision in which Burns drove his vehicle westbound in the eastbound lanes of U.S. Highway 50 while under the influence of alcohol, striking another car and causing the death of an eight-year-old passenger. The trial court sentenced Burns to two to twenty-one years in prison. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the convictions, holding that the admission of State’s Exhibit No. 10—which included evidence of Burns’s prior offenses, such as a previous drunk-driving incident—violated the general rule barring evidence of separate and independent prior crimes, as none of the recognized exceptions (such as putting character in issue or raising an insanity defense) applied. The court concluded this error was prejudicial and remanded with instructions to grant a new trial.

criminal lawprocedure

In Sharp v. State, three defendants were charged with second-degree burglary of a service station in Kokomo, Indiana, based on an affidavit alleging they broke and entered the building with intent to commit theft. After a bench trial, the court found each guilty, but the defendants moved for a new trial arguing the evidence was insufficient. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the circumstantial evidence—showing only the defendants walking nearby without identification, tools, or other links—failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and did not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, as it amounted to mere suspicion rather than conclusive proof. The court compared the facts to precedents like Medsker v. State (sufficient evidence) and Melvin v. State (insufficient evidence) to illustrate the standard. The opinion was authored by Justice Jackson, with concurrence from three justices and a dissent by Justice Arterburn.

criminal lawprocedure