Case Title: Douglas v. State

Citation: 254 Ind. 324, 259 N.E.2d 691

Docket Number: 169S5

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 1970-06-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
254 Ind. 324 (1970)
259 N.E.2d 691
DOUGLAS
v.
STATE OF INDIANA.
No. 169S5.

Supreme Court of Indiana.
Filed June 29, 1970.
*325 Frederick J. Graf, of Indianapolis, for appellant.
Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, Murray West, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee.
No petition for rehearing filed.
JACKSON, J.
This is an appeal from the overruling of appellant's Motion for New Trial and Amended Motion for New Trial following a conviction of appellant, after trial to the court without the intervention of a jury, on a felony charge, to-wit: rape, embodied in an indictment filed against appellant in the above court.
The indictment filed herein reads in pertinent part as follows:
Appellant filed a Notice of Alibi and a Motion to Amend that Notice (pp. 15, 16 & 18 Tr.). The State's answer thereto is found at p. 30 Tr. and in pertinent part reads as follows:
The appellant then filed a Motion for Disclosure and Production of Evidence Favorable to Accused. Such motion, including attached memorandum covers eight pages of record and is therefore omitted. In substance it seeks an order requiring the prosecution to furnish for appellant's use a list of names of witnesses to be used by the State, etc. It also alleges that the State has information of certain reports of investigations into this alleged crime that show the appellant was not and is not the perpetrator of the crime charged herein, and that these reports should be made available to the appellant. The motion also alleges that the State suppresses and/or failed to disclose at the preliminary hearing before this Court certain evidence favorable to the defendant together with certain exculpatory statements secured in the investigation of this case and that this information should be made available to defendant or his counsel. Also, the motion alleges an illegal and unconstitutional lineup and other activities by the police officers and seeks an order requiring the statements, both oral and written, by persons viewing the lineup be made available to the defense.
The court sustained this motion in part by requiring the *327 State to furnish defendant a list of names and addresses of State's witnesses on or before August 23, 1968.
Following trial the court found appellant guilty of commission of a felony, rape, while armed with a deadly weapon, as charged in the indictment, and that the defendant-appellant was twenty-three years of age.
Thereafter, on September 12, 1968, the appellant was sentenced to the Indiana State Reformatory for not less than twelve (12) years and costs. (Tr. p. 41).
On September 23, 1968, the appellant filed his motion for new trial. This motion for new trial was overruled October 17, 1968.
On September 27, 1968, appellant filed an Amended Motion for New Trial, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
This motion was overruled by the court on October 17, 1968.
Appellant's Assignment of Errors in pertinent part reads as follows:
From the evidence adduced at trial, viewed in a light most favorable to appellee, it appears that on the evening of March 16, 1968, at approximately 9:00 p.m., the complainant, Miss Barbara Ann Burns, was running to catch a bus at the intersection of 22nd and College in Indianapolis, Marion County, Indiana. At that time a man approached her, put a gun in her side, and told her that he would shoot her if she screamed. He then ordered her to go behind a nearby barber shop where he further ordered her to take off her coat, her underclothes, and to lay down. An act of sexual intercouse followed. Thereafter, appellant led the complainant to a vacant house at 23rd and Broadway. Once inside, appellant again forced Miss Burns to submit to numerous acts of sexual intercourse and sodomy. Upon completion of same, at approximately 11:00 p.m. on the night in question, appellant ordered complainant to remove all of her clothing and walk to the back door of the house at 23rd and Broadway, so that she would not call the police. She did as requested, then ran back into the living room, put on her clothes, and went next door where the resident called the police. At all times hereinbefore mentioned appellant had the gun with him, and Miss Burns testified on direct examination regarding her fear of appellant.
*329 Sgt. John Lund of the Indianapolis Police Department testified that, on approximately five or six occasions subsequent to the alleged crime, he had conversations with the complainant, and on each occasion he showed her various pictures of "logical suspects" in an effort to have her identify her assailant. Appellant's picture was shown to her only on the last occasion, and at that time Miss Burns identified the man in the picture (the appellant) as the perpetrator of the crime.
Appellant's Summary of The Argument is as follows:
*330 We will answer appellant's summary of the argument in the order presented.
A. In view of the evidence adduced by the State at the trial we are of the opinion the court committed no error in sustaining a portion of appellant's motion for the production of evidence. The witnesses produced were ones appellant was aware of and their testimony certainly did not surprise the appellant. If the State had additional evidence that tended either to incriminate or clear the appellant he made no request for a continuance or other effort to obtain a further order from the court to require the State to produce such evidence. Other than the request, partially granted, there was no showing the State was in possession of evidence that would have cleared the defendant. We at this point, on appeal, cannot say that the matters alleged in the motion were more than a fishing expedition hoping to produce exculpatory evidence for the reason the allegations were general, indefinite and uncertain as to who, what and where.
B. While we might go so far as to agree with appellant's counsel that the evidence of the prosecuting witness is "fantastic" or "bizarre," we point out that when the question of the sufficiency of the evidence is raised the Supreme Court will consider only that evidence most favorable to the State, together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. Fisher v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 529, 219 N.E.2d 818; Donaldson v. State (1952), 231 Ind. 434, 108 N.E.2d 888.
Moreover, the Supreme Court on appeal will not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses. Stock v. State (1966), 247 Ind. 532, 219 N.E.2d 809 Those duties devolve upon the trier of the facts.
C. This specificaiton refers to the alleged error of the court in denying appellant's amended motion for a new trial. In support of this specification appellant refers to the two *331 affidavits made a part thereof. A reference to the record shows the appellant testified he got the gun alleged to have been used in this alleged crime on March 19, 1968, from a man named James, whose last name he did not know.
The affidavit of James Hall, attached to appellant's amended motion for a new trial avers that he, Hall, purchased a 22 pistol from Leonard Collins, his foreman, on or about the 7th day of March, 1968. On the same night he sold the gun to Carrie Douglas, the appellant. Present at that time were Robert Douglas, brother of the appellant, and John Taylor. The affiant further said that he was present when Police Officer King arrested Carrie Douglas for carrying the same pistol; present at that time were Robert Douglas, brother of appellant, and John Taylor; that said arrest took place at the Family Tavern at 16th and College Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana. After the arrest, Carrie Douglas was taken downtown but affiant, John Taylor and Robert Douglas were not arrested.
The second affidavit was made by Robert Dotson, brother of Carrie Douglas. He avers that on or about March 29th or 30th he was present at the Family Tavern, 16th and College Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana, when his brother Carrie Douglas was arrested for carrying a pistol, and at that time the following people were present  John Taylor, James Hall and himself and that the arresting officer took his brother downtown.
John Taylor testified as a defense witness that he was with the appellant when he got the gun above referred to, that Carrie Douglas got the gun from "a guy named James" at the J. & B. Tavern at 16th and College, he thinks after March 16, 1968. He is a nephew of appellant. On cross examination affiant changed the date of appellant's acquisition of the gun from March 16, 1968 to March 19th or 20th, 1968. The appellant was arrested the same night he got the gun.
We thus have appellant and his nephew fixing the date of *332 the acquisition of the gun on March 19 or 20 and the arrest the same night he got it.
James Hall the man who made affidavit to that fact says he sold the gun to appellant March 7, 1968. He makes affidavit he was present when appellant was arrested for having the gun but does not fix a date when the arrest occurred.
This Court will not search the record to reverse. Coleman v. State (1961), 241 Ind. 663, 175 N.E.2d 25; Lynch v. State (1960), 240 Ind. 376, 165 N.E.2d 762.
Nor will it weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of the witnesses. Stock v. State, supra.
We find no merit in this specification.
The Judgment is affirmed.
Hunter, C.J., Arterburn and Givan, JJ., concur. DeBruler, J., concurs in result.
NOTE.  Reported in 259 N.E.2d 691.