Davis v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 1968-08-28 · cited 25×
In Davis v. State, the defendant was charged with first-degree burglary after entering a private apartment without consent, being discovered inside searching items, and fleeing after a wallet was stolen; he was convicted of the lesser offense of entering to commit a felony. On appeal, he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove intent to commit a felony and certain evidentiary rulings by the trial court. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that the defendant's unauthorized presence, observed actions inside the home, the theft, and flight provided sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent, distinguishing the case from precedents like Easton v. State where such additional facts were absent. The court also found that any errors in admitting testimony were harmless because the facts were established by other competent evidence and did not require a directed verdict.
criminal law
CALVIN FARRELL HADLEY v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 1968-07-23 · cited 17×
The case involved Calvin Farrell Hadley, who was convicted by a jury of second-degree burglary for breaking into a business building with intent to commit theft. Hadley challenged the conviction through a motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless search of his residence and a motion in arrest of judgment, arguing that the charging affidavit omitted the required mens rea element of 'knowingly' and that the search violated constitutional protections. The trial court denied the motions, entered judgment sentencing him to two to five years, and the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction on appeal. On rehearing, the court held that any defect in the affidavit was cured by the verdict and that the search and seizure issues had already been fully addressed without raising new questions warranting reversal.
criminal lawprocedure
Groce v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 1968-05-13 · cited 11×
The case involved the conviction of the appellant for inflicting physical injury during a robbery, based on an attack on a victim in her home on September 1, 1966, resulting in a life sentence. The court affirmed the jury's guilty verdict, finding sufficient evidence of identification through a matching fingerprint on broken glass from the entry point and that the taking of the purse from a nearby room satisfied the robbery statute's requirement of taking from the victim's person or presence. The court also held that alleged trial errors not objected to or raised in the motion for new trial were waived, as they did not constitute fundamental error apparent on the record that would have denied a fair trial.
criminal lawprocedure
Peterson v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 1968-03-06 · cited 24×
The case involved Wayne Marlin Peterson's appeal from his conviction for robbery in Allen County, Indiana, following a jury trial. Peterson challenged the admission of photographs taken during a warrantless search of his car in Michigan, arguing that the search violated his constitutional rights under the state and federal constitutions because he had not been lawfully arrested and no search warrant had been obtained. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed the conviction, holding that the search was incident to a valid arrest and that any potential error in admitting the evidence was harmless given the substantial independent testimony from multiple eyewitnesses identifying Peterson as the perpetrator and other unobjected-to evidence linking him to the crime. The court noted that the appellant had limited his appeal to specific exhibits and found no reversible error in the proceedings.
criminal lawprocedurecivil rights
Gray v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 1968-02-06 · cited 5×
The case involved the conviction of appellant Gray for contributing to the delinquency of two 17-year-old girls by permitting them to be out after the 11:00 P.M. curfew without parental consent and by furnishing them alcoholic beverages. After a bench trial, Gray was found guilty and sentenced to six months in jail, leading to this appeal based on insufficient evidence. The court reversed the conviction, holding that the evidence did not establish that Gray knowingly induced or contributed to the minors' violations of curfew or alcohol laws. The reasoning emphasized that mere presence at the party or possible assistance in acquiring beer for another person was inadequate, as the statute requires an active, knowledgeable effort to entice the prohibited conduct.
criminal law
Wagner v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 1968-01-25 · cited 12×
In Wagner v. State, the appellant was charged with possession of heroin in violation of the 1935 Narcotic Act after a prior federal conviction for selling narcotics. Following a warrantless arrest and search based on a tip from a known informant, the trial court denied the motion to suppress the evidence, convicted the defendant after a bench trial, and imposed an indeterminate sentence of five to twenty years. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that the arrest was lawful because the informant had previously provided reliable information to the officer, the tip was specific and recent, and the defendant had a narcotics record, making the seized evidence admissible. The court noted that informants are commonly and permissibly used in narcotics cases when their information is sufficiently reliable to support action.
criminal lawprocedure