Case Title: Van Deveer v. State

Citation: 269 N.E.2d 865

Docket Number: 470S96

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1971-06-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
269 N.E.2d 865 (1971)
John VAN DEVEER, Appellant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee.
No. 470S96.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
June 4, 1971.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 1971.
Palmer K. Ward, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Atty. Gen. of Ind., Darrel K. Diamond, Deputy Atty. Gen., for appellee.
ARTERBURN, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from the Marion Criminal Court, Division 2, wherein the appellant was found guilty as charged of the crime of bribery.
Appellant first contends that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict of the jury. The statute under which the appellant was charged, Burns' Indiana Stat. Anno. (1970 Cum.Supp.) § 10-601, I.C. 1971, XX-X-XX-X, reads in part:
Considering the testimony of James Guerrettaz, a witness for the State, we find sufficient evidence from which the jury could have found the appellant guilty of bribery under the above quoted statute. Guerrettaz testified (concerning his initial conversation with the appellant):
The appellant next contends that the court committed prejudicial error in permitting the State to introduce into evidence the testimony of four witnesses concerning alleged acts of bribery on the part of the defendant in 1968 and 1969. The rule concerning proof of similar crimes is well stated in 1 Ewbanks Indiana Criminal Law, Symmes Ed., § 384, p. 236, which we quoted approvingly in Meeks v. State (1968), 249 Ind. 659, 234 N.E.2d 629:
The testimony objected to tends to show both intent and guilty knowledge. Furthermore, it shows a common scheme or plan by establishing a course of conduct in soliciting bribes from other plumbing contractors. In Laymon v. State (1961), 242 Ind. 62, 176 N.E.2d 120, we held testimony that the defendant was involved in other illegal check and cash transactions in connection with his employer was admissible to show intent, course of conduct, and any scheme involved in the embezzlement charged.
The appellant next contends that the court erred in not giving Defendant's Tendered Instruction No. 2, which stated:
We find that Defendant's Tendered Instruction 1, given as Court's Instruction No. 16 1/2, fully covered the substance of Defendant's Tendered Instruction No. 2. Court's Instruction No. 16 1/2 stated:
Court's Instruction No. 16 1/2 stated that evidence of similar offenses is not admissible to prove the offense charged. In essence, that is the substance of Defendant's Tendered Instruction No. 2. We further point out that there was also an instruction given by the court that it was the duty to acquit the defendant if the jury had reasonable doubt of the guilt.
Finding no errors, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
GIVAN, PRENTICE, DeBRULER and HUNTER, JJ., concur.